Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.



Little Athletics[edit]

Nominator(s): NickGibson3900 Talk 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a type of junior athletics in Australia. On the 17 July 2014, Little Athletics turned up on my SuggestBot suggestions. I had a look and this is what I found: A POV, unreferenced, messy and factually incorrect article. Over time I have found 29 refs, 2 pictures and reworded the whole article.

I would like to thank: User:TheQ Editor for his GA review, User:Valfury for his copyedit and User:EricEnfermero for his peer review. Also I'd like to thank User: for finding a photo and adding sponsorship information, User:Mitch Ames for his response to my request at the Australian wikipedians noticeboard, User:Oceanh for nominating Little Athletics for DYK, User:Cwmhiraeth for reviewing the DYK nomination and User: for creating the article in October 2004. This is my first FAC and any comments (positive or negative) are welcome. -- NickGibson3900 Talk 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): URDNEXT (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC), Czar (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UFC), Tezero (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2012 video game Sleeping Dogs. I have made my absolute goal to take this page to FA, and alongside Tezero and Czar, I think I'm on the right track. This is the first time I nominate an article to FA seriously, so please help me. URDNEXT (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: While I too feel it fits the FA criteria, I cannot support this, being a primary contributor behind URDNEXT. I'm not sure how much czar has done or, accordingly, whether he would be able to vote. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero Add yourself as a nominator! URDNEXT (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Tezero (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

Urdnext asked me if I could do a source review first, so I'm going to find and check the authenticity of some sources within the article:

Replaced with the NeoGAF link. Though I'm not sure if it is reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 leads to a different domain, but could this just be me? And is a reliable source?
I removed that source, and replaced it with a metacritic page. Pretty sure it's now reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 37 and 47, is United Front Games a reliable source too?
That's the developers' official website. It's a primary source, though reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see! My mistake. Jaguar 22:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Nobody is perfect. URDNEXT (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 69, 70 and 71 - these Metacritic links are virtually identical but are used more than once?
@Jaguar Each source is used twice: one for the prose, the other for the reviews box. It's common throughout every article in the VG project. URDNEXT (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "On August 3, 2012, information on cross-promotional content for the PC version of Sleeping Dogs was posted on the game's official website" - is this sourced?
Now it is. URDNEXT (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the main issues of the references out of the way. I know that the source review wasn't very comprehensive but I'm sure someone will come along and double check over every one. Aside from the dead ref and the liability of a couple of sources, the references look in pretty good shape. The majority of the citations are in the correct places and the article is generally broad, comprehensive and well referenced. The sources could have easily passed a GAN however since this is a FAC this has to showcase some of the best work on Wikipedia. I will leave the full copyediting/prose review tomorrow morning. Jaguar 22:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Jaguar! URDNEXT (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ɱ[edit]

  • Support.--ɱ (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have looked over the images used in the article, and they all appear to meet copyright policies. I skimmed through the text and references and found no issues; if I have time I'll look forward to analyzing it more. Still, this receives my general support to become a FA.--ɱ (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, ɱ! URDNEXT (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Support, everything looks good now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1997 science fiction film. The first nomination for this article was archived just over 2 weeks ago; it did not pass as only two people were supporting it. Numerous concerns were originally brought up, 100% of which were addressed in order to obtain the support of the two reviewers. Naturally this was a time consuming process, and by the time I had the support of the second editor the nomination was at the bottom of the queue, ready to be closed. As all issues known issues have already been addressed, however, I anticipate this nomination being much smoother and quicker. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I was asked to support the nomination on my talk page, but I don't have a problem with that, since I supported the first nomination and the changes since then have been minor. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Back from an involuntary Wikibreak of several months, and I'm happy to dive right back into FAC. I love this film, and I'm really excited to see it here at FAC. Unfortunately, I don't quite think this is to the point where I can support its promotion. I'll start with references and reference formatting, as that's always been my primary evaluation demesne here:

  • Most critically, you're very inconsistent about how you style online sources. I see at least four formatting styles: site name, not in italics (Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes); site name in italics (AllMovie); URL, not in italics (,; URL in italics (,
  • Quite a few of the references are incomplete. The Ebert review doesn't even site Roger Ebert as the author, nor include the publication date available. At least the Box Office Mojo reference lacks a retrieval date. Ah, there's an AllMusic reference lacking one also.
  • The Edelstein review at Slate is improperly titled; the work is not "Slate magazine review", but rather "Unmitigated Gaul: The Fifth Element and Irma Vep". Pretty much every website referenced needs to be re-checked for completeness and accuracy.
  • Henkel appears to be a dead link.
  • I'm not immediately convinced that some of these web sources constitute reliable sources. Or, rather, that they constitute the best quality reliable sources for the information provided. There are several, although I think [2] stands out on a quick look.
  • I think there are some sources with things to say that at least need to be considered, if not included:
    • Ott, Brian L., and Eric Aoki. "Counter-imagination as interpretive practice: Futuristic fantasy and The Fifth Element." Women's Studies in Communication 27.2 (2004): 149-176.
    • Brandt, Stefan. "American Culture X: Identity, homosexuality, and the search for a new American hero." In West, Russel and Frank Lay, eds. Subverting Masculinity. Hegemonic and Alternative Visions of Masculinity in Contemporary Culture. Rodopi BV (2000): 67-93. ISBN 978-9042012349.
    • "Video Pleasure and Narrative Cinema: Luc Besson's The Fifth Element and Video Game Logic" by Warren Buckland. This article has been reprinted in several works, and I'm not sure which came first. Here is one.

Honestly, the reference formatting alone is enough for me to oppose (and I didn't check them very thoroughly, because there are some pretty fatal problems there), but I did a scan through the article body also:

  • In the plot summary, "It consists of four stones..." would have the Great Evil as an antecedent, not the weapon that it needs to refer to.
    • Good point; done. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The process where Leeloo is restored is described as reconstruction throughout. I'm not sure whether I think that's the best word here, but in the plot section, "re-construct" is hyphenated, while later in Production, "reconstructed" is not. (I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be.)
    • Removed hypen for consistency. I can't think of a better word, but if you suggest one i'd be more than happy to consider it. Freikorp (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "jumps off a ledge to land in the flying taxicab" (emphasis mine) implies that was her purpose, rather than a fortunate happenstance.
    • Good point; clarified that it was not intentional. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Zorg kills the Mangalores..." but then "The publicity surrounding the contest attracts the Mangalores".
    • Clarified that he did not kill all of them. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Leeloo has become disenchanted with humanity". Perhaps say why, as it's sort of important to the point of the film?
  • In Themes, "eleventh hour" seems overly formal to my ear.
    • Changed to "last minute". Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a weighting concern with the Themes section. The entire second paragraph is exclusively sourced to Hayward. I don't have any problems with that source in and of itself, but has no one else made any reliable commentary on these aspects of this film? I find the last sentence of this section fairly incomprehensible, personally.
    • No, as far as I can tell no other reliable source has commented on themes in the film. This was actually, by far, the hardest part of the article to expand. I started purchasing offline sources as a last resort to find some information on themes, as I knew the article would not survive FAC without a larger theme section, and of the three offline books I purchased this was the only one that contained information on themes. Thankfully, it contained a lot of information on them. The last sentence was reworded considerably on prose concerns in the original nomination; I can see your point, and i'm not opposed to removing it entirely. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Check for duplicate links. You've got some in Soundtrack, Critical response and legacy, and Accolades.

I know there's a lot of effort put into this, but at least at the moment, I regretfully oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I anticipate responding to all of your concerns by the end of the day, but i'll start with some of the easier ones now. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar system. Its development took almost five years and is a story full of false starts, lucky breaks and bureaucratic infighting.

I'm not exactly sure what happened to the last FA process on this. Everything seemed to be going fine, then all the reviewers wandered off and then it was closed.

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw (1831)[edit]

Nominator(s): //Halibutt 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the largest and the most important battle of the November Uprising, or the Polish-Russian War of 1830-1831. I expanded the article from a mere three-sentence long sub-stub in August 2013. The article has not been peer reviewed as such, but it received lots of love during the GA nomination in September 2013. Since then it's been pretty much stable. Interestingly, as the history of Poland is not yet covered in-depth in English language books, this article is probably the only English language monograph of the battle out there. Most English sources mention it by name only, or in a brief passing note. //Halibutt 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Welcome back to FAC, Halibutt. The writing is generally well-organized and lively. I read quickly down to Opposing forces and fixed some things, but my suggestion is that someone proficient should read through the whole thing looking for obvious language problems. Some examples:
  • "who has been deposed of Polish throne": who had been deposed from the Polish throne
  • "sympathy towards ... the Polish question": "Support for ... Polish independence" would be better.
  • "considered it but an experiment": old-fashioned "but"
  • "Warsaw would hold out at least several weeks of siege": "hold out at least several weeks" is fine; "hold out at least several weeks of siege" is not. "hold out for" or "hold out at least several weeks under a siege" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Partial image check[edit]

Think that's everything reviewed. Lots of issues, I'm afraid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Really just looking at the references and reference formatting here for now:

  • What order are these bibliography entries in? It looks almost, but not quite, alphabetized.
  • Your ISBN numbers are not consistently formatted. ISBN 13 with hyphenation is preferred.
  • For books lacking ISBNs, some sort of identifier would be helpful, especially to help English-speaking readers locate this material more easily; OCLC is pretty much always my choice but other options may exist (I see you do actually have an OCLC for Strzeżek).
  • "various authors" is not a standard way of presenting a long author list (there are several, and I'll not prescribe formatting choices).
  • Retrieval dates are not all in the same date format.
  • The Rostocki reference looks like a journal entry? Do you have a page range? Or, if I'm wrong, publisher information? Really, I think this entry's just incomplete.
  • Some but not all of the titles have English translations provided. Any particular reason why that's been done for those, but just those?

I haven't evaluated the prose at all, but I also share the concerns about image sourcing and documentation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you back at FAC, Squeamish. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

George Formby Snr[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

George Formby Snr was a music hall star, singer-songwriter and comedian. A Lancastrian by background, he used his regional background and his tuberculosis as a font for his humour. He died at the relatively young age of 46, but his son George picked up his act before coming a major star of the 30s and 40s. This article has undergone a major re-write recently, and a star cast at PR have tweaked, poked, prodded and polished. – SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I was one of the peer reviewers, and had my few and minor quibbles dealt with then. This is a fine piece of work on an important figure in his field, on whom there is surprisingly little published material. SchroCat has tracked down what there is, and has built up as good an article on Formby Sr as Wikipedia, or anybody else, is going to get, bringing to light information missed by e.g. the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in re Formby's bigamous marriage. A substantial achievement, meeting all the FA criteria in my judgment. Tim riley talk 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your comments both at PR and here - they are very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Support with some unconditional comments:
  • Unless I'm missing it, there is no introduction to Ted Granville. I, and a handful of others, would know him to be the proprietor of the Royal Albert Music Hall, but a hell of a load others, will not.
  • "His popularity increased when Marie Lloyd, the influential music hall singer and actress, said that she would only watch two acts: his and that of Dan Leno." →"His popularity increased when Marie Lloyd, the influential music hall singer and actress, said that she would only watch two acts: his and Dan Leno's."?
  • "After the Formbys had lost three daughters to early deaths, their first son was born in 1904, George Hoy Booth." →"After the Formbys had lost three daughters to early deaths, their first son, George Hoy Booth, was born in 1904."?
  • "For much of January and February 1908 Formby was booked to appear in London venues at £20 a week, and followed this the next year with playing three of the capital's music halls a night for £45 a week in total, which included performing at the Tivoli, with Lloyd and Little Tich as the headline acts. -- This might be a bit long for comfortable reading. Also, I would say that "in total" is a bit redundant.
  • "Formby was always worried that his son George would watch him on stage, as he did not wish the boy to become an actor, saying "one fool in the family is enough." -- Are actors considered to be "fools"? Did he mean comedian, comic etc?
  • "Are actors considered to be "fools"?" Do I have to answer that...?!
  • "Formby returned within a week and the reviewers were more positive, with The Observer stating..." -- Can "reviewers" refer to a newspaper, or should it be "reviews"? If you want to use "reviewers", might I suggest using a person as they are the "reviewer", or adjusting it to "a reviewer for The Observer..."
  • "By making the orchestra play his entrance music and not appear..." -- Formby or the orchestra?
  • "His act included songs, described as "characteristically simple, some with tunes derived from Methodist hymns, and with catchy choruses" -- By who?
  • "One of Formby's nicknames, 'The Wigan Nightingale' was coined 'because of the way he incorporated his rasping, bronchial cough into his stage act' ". -- are the last set of quote marks necessary? Cassiantotalk 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • All your suggestions adopted - many thanks for all your thoughts at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Per MOS:ACCESS, bolded pseudoheadings should be replaced by normal subheadings
  • FN22 should be BBC Online
  • FN25: not sure about this. The citation is incomplete, but actual source being cited is the memorial itself, not the photo of it, and Find-a-Grave is not a great source
  • Suggest spelling out Hampshire. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikki - much appreciated as always. I'll try and track down a replacement for the memorial, just to make it a little more concrete. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Image review
  • You can fix the issues I raised like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments - so much good work done, there's little left but for me to nitpick and probably waste both of our time...! Feel free to ignore all of the following.

  • "the pandemic of 1918" you link just "pandemic" although the article linked to is specifically about the pandemic of 1918...
  • "sang at pubs" reads a little odd, "sang in pubs" seems more conventional to me.
  • " Later on in his life" any real need for "on"?
  • In the quote, he says "... Which of the 'bhoys'..." - what does this mean?
  • "Professor Baz Kershaw" care to place him context? Prof of what and where for instance. (Only because he's not notable enough for an article..)
  • "there is no evidence of a divorce" you've jumped a little here from marriage straight to an uncertain separation, anything in the middle of this?
  • "In 1897 or 98" is this really compliant with MOSDATE? I'm certain it must be, I just haven't seen it before....
  • "as the comedian also had several children with other partners" is there anything more that can be said about this?
  • "the proprietor of the Royal Albert Music Hall, booked him to appear in his first London performances, at the Royal Albert Music Hall...." repetitive.
  • "had no problems in" not sure why, but this reads a little too colloquial for me.
  • Razzle Dazzle or Razzle-Dazzle?
  • No such entity as The Dundee Courier, it's just The Courier which happens to serve Dundee.
  • " his stage persona was also slightly changed" would it be better to say something like "he slightly modified his stage persona"?
  • "to the US" for prose why not "to the United States"?
  • "[70][28]" while I've never seen it writ anywhere, I'd prefer footnotes to be in numerical order.

Otherwise a thoroughly engaging and well-written piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 1993[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to make sure The Boat Race articles are all represented and of a decent quality. This, the 1993 version, is a personal favourite of mine, but I've hopefully done the right things before coming here. I created it as a stub a while back and took it through to Good article status. I asked for a peer review and received rather lame results (no disrespect to the two editors who made a handful of comments, but it wasn't quite what I'd hoped for), so it seems there's no other course of action other than to nominate it here, for better or for worse. It was a fast race, it featured new technology in the blades and some bloke called M. Pinsent was a participant. A losing one. Rare. Thanks, as ever, to anyone who contributes to this process and to the time and energy expended in wading through the article. Regardless of the outcome, it's always very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. I have been constantly expanded this article since its announcement in 2013 and I now believe the article meets FA standards. The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Also, just a quick note about its notability, it is the first attraction in the world to use 90-degree rotating seats on a drop tower.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Hans Lody[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is my (first) contribution to Wikipedia's commemoration of the First World War. It concerns an affair that was something of a cause célèbre at the start of the war but has since been somewhat forgotten, other than occasional flashes of interest - it was covered briefly by the BBC earlier this year. It concerns the brief and unsuccessful career of the first German spy to be shot in Britain during the war (and the first person executed in the Tower of London for 167 years). I've been able to make use of archive material and contemporary news reports to document the story of Carl Hans Lody in, I think, probably greater detail than anyone has managed before in print. The centenary of his death is coming up on 6 November 2014; I'm hoping to request that this should be the featured article of the day. Given the short timeframe, I've taken the unusual step of bringing this article directly to FAC. I've aimed to write it from the outset as an FA-quality article, drawing my experience as the author of numerous Featured and Good Articles. Prioryman (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Some passing thoughts from Bencherlite:
    • The article uses a mixture of "First World War" and "World War I" (but "Second World War" only) - best to stick to one format throughout for both wars.
      • Good point, I've amended this. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you need to wikilink London / Berlin / other major European cities (per WP:OVERLINK)?
      • I've been advised to (see below)... Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
        • @Prioryman: I think the suggestion was to say "London, England" as opposed to "London", and Cliftonian doesn't mention wikilinks. BencherliteTalk 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Bencherlite is correct. Wikilinks were not what I meant. I'm sorry for not being clearer. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I fixed a couple of dab links - you might want to check I had the right targets - but I wasn't sure which "Halle" you need (end of the first paragraph of the body of the article)
      • Thanks for that, I found the right Halle. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's all I have time for at the mo. BencherliteTalk 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • some passing thoughts from Auntieruth55:
    • in addition to the above from Bencherlite...There are a couple of red links in there, and I think, generally, that we should at least have a brief explanation or a stub for those. Not trying to make up a lot of work for you, but it would require very little, actually.
      • Good point, I'll see what I can do. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • appropriate punctuation between paragraphs and indented quotes when you have his description as a south German....
      • OK, added a colon. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • some word order examples:
      • On 8 May 1914, the director of 'N', Fritz Prieger, Fritz Prieger, then director of 'N', (consistency with previous mention of the first director)to
        • Amended as suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • travel restrictions were imposed that prevented foreigners leaving without travel documents to travel restrictions prevented foreigners from leaving Germany without proper documents (travel is repetitive, also, it's a wordy sentence). Also, in this section you mention the security features, etc., but I think that most American passports until the 1920s did not have photographs. Since you make a point of saying that there were no security features (such as those we use today), you might clarify this.
        • Amended as suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I thought, generally, that it was an excellent article. Probably you'll want to continue tweaking it, to reduce some wordiness and other readability issues such as those I've described.
    • 'll look forward to re-reading it later. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - (all Done) just a few points (lead), i haven't read the whole article yet.

  • ", including Americans – real or otherwise – " - misses an ending comma. However i think the whole clause could be removed. It's enough to say, that foreigners in general came under suspicion.
  • Fair enough, done. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Nearly twenty years later, the government of Nazi Germany declared him to be a national hero and [became the subject of memorials]" - the second part needs a new subject (last subject was the government itself).
  • "During World War II, however, his gravestone in East London was destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing." - this little piece of irony seems trivial and out of place as final lead sentence (after all even the British acknowledged his courage).
  • I've amended it a bit, but the irony is obvious - that the Nazis lauded him as a national hero yet (albeit accidentally) managed to drop a bomb on his grave. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Reads more neutral now with a wider context. GermanJoe (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please don't use PD-US as copyright tag for images, the template is too vague to show a clear copyright situation (just fyi, already changed them myself). GermanJoe (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for doing that. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Review from Cliftonian[edit]

Gave this a full-through in the morning as a preparation for a thorough review.


  • Do we know when/where/by whom this photograph of Lody was taken? If not, we should probably remove the caption beneath the picture—just saying "Carl Hans Lody" doesn't really add anything, it's clear who this is
  • It appears, as far as I've been able to determine, to be a police photograph - presumably taken during the time between his arrest and execution. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think we have to use the "birth name" field if it is the same as the name at the top (my understanding is that this is for middle names or names that have been changed).
  • Many readers will not know what a Oberleutnant zur See is. I think a footnote next to it giving the equivalent British and American ranks would be a concise and unobtrusive way to remedy this
  • Perhaps put that his Iron Cross, Second Class was posthumous?
  • I believe we usually put the country along with the city in the infobox, even if it's clear. I don't see how putting "Berlin, Germany" and "London, England" would hurt.


  • Don't think we need the first comma after "Inglis"
  • "but was orphaned" I'm not sure about this usage of "but"—the second part of this sentence doesn't disagree with the first
  • Two sentences in the first paragraph start "After ..." Recommend adding some variation
  • The lead is a little too detailed in places (for example I'm not sure it's necessary to specify his wife came from Omaha, NE).
  • "Americans – real or otherwise –" I agree with the above comment that "real or otherwise" is not necessary. The point is that Americans and other foreigners were under suspicion.
  • "He decided to travel to Ireland" → "He travelled to Ireland". Also put a comma after "Ireland"
  • "to an address in Stockholm" perhaps "to a Stockholm address"?
  • "that was known to be" by whom? Suggest rewording to "that the British knew to be"
  • "All of his subsequent communications with that address were intercepted by Post Office censors." Don't need "All of" and I don't think we need "Post Office" either ("intercepted by censors" is clear enough in my opinion)
  • "without using invisible ink, code or any other means of concealment" just saying "without any means of concealment" is enough I think
  • "decided to allow him" → "allowed him"
  • "in an investigation that lasted less than a day." → "in less than a day."
  • "He did not attempt to deny that he was a German spy, and his bearing was widely praised as forthright and courageous by the British press and even by the police and MO5(g) officers who had tracked him down." Suggest splitting this long sentence after "German spy":
  • "He did not attempt to deny that he was a German spy. His bearing was widely praised as forthright and courageous by the British press, and even by the police and MO5(g) officers who had tracked him down."
  • " and became the subject of memorials, eulogies and commemorations in Germany" you need to add "he" before "became" to make this sentence make sense. I would also substitute a semicolon for "and".
  • Perhaps end by saying that his gravestone was destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing, but that his body remains buried in East London?
  • Thanks for the suggestions, I've implemented them all. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the first lot, continuing —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Early life and career

  • I copy-edited throughout here.
  • Does Boghardt speculate as to why the Stolzes may not have liked the match? Likewise does he give any details regarding their whirlwind romance? What attracted them to each other?
  • Unfortunately he doesn't. I'm fairly sure, actually, that he didn't have access to the newspaper reports I used. I might drop him an email and ask his opinion. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Beginning of espionage career

  • Copy-edited.


  • Copy-edited.
  • ""Burchard" was later identified as a German agent" by whom?
  • The source doesn't say - presumably by MI5. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why on earth did he sign a letter as "Nazi"?! I thought this might be vandalism but it seems he indeed did. How extraordinary. Explanation for this would be great.
    • Ah, thanks for reminding me about that. It's a familiar version of "Ignatz". Not surprisingly it's a usage that has fallen into disfavour. I've added an explanatory footnote (I meant to do that earlier but forgot). Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Journey to Ireland and capture

  • Copy-edited.

Legal complications

  • Copy-edited.


  • Copy-edited.
  • "He had sought in both "to convey to a belligerent enemy of Great Britain, namely Germany" information relating to the UK's defences and preparations for war." I suggest reviewing this sentence as it doesn't make sense.
  • I changed this to "In both letters, the charge sheet stated, Lody had sought "to convey to a belligerent enemy of Great Britain, namely Germany" information relating to the UK's defences and preparations for war." Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "of foreign appearance" suggest clarifying who described this man as such
  • Attributed this. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Copy-edited.


  • Copy-edited slightly here.
  • We refer here to "Iron Cross, second class", with lower case letters, and in the infobox with upper case letters. Either in fine but we should be consistent.
  • I've made both upper case. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why was there reluctance on the part of the German authorities to recognise Lody?
  • Unclear, but I would guess (speculatively) that the post-war authorities of the Weimar Republic were not too keen on promoting the deeds of their predecessors. The German Revolution of 1918-19 marked a pretty decisive break between the imperial and republican regimes. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

From spy to national hero

  • I think the section on the play is probably a little too detailed. Perhaps shorten it slightly?


  • Looks more or less good I think.

I hope all this helps. Great article. I may come back later for another run through. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Acacia pycnantha[edit]

Nominator(s): Melburnian & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Australia's national floral emblem....also a weed in South Africa. We liked putting this together. Got a thorough GA review (thanks J Milburn!) - all input appreciated. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Seinfeld Chronicles[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to a lack of reviews (one review within a month, a 'cautious support'), this article was not promoted during the previous nomination. I hope this time around the article will receive more attention, as I believe it meets all standards for promotion.--Music26/11 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as last time, on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Master System[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, Nintendo was definitely the top dog in video game consoles, but they weren't the only competitor. A relative upstart in terms of home video game consoles, Sega started off by releasing the SG-1000, coincidentally on the same day Nintendo released their Famicom in Japan. Within two years, Sega had dropped the SG-1000 in favor of the Mark III, which became this console, the Master System. While Sega managed to do little with the Master System, partially due to Nintendo's monopolistic practices with video game developers, their work on the Master System would later help to set them up for success in the next generation with the Sega Genesis. The Master System was a flop in Japan and North America, but sold better than Nintendo in Europe, and still continues on today in Brazil through Sega distributor Tectoy. It's a unique device in a video game console that has lasted more than twenty years in South America and served a role in the history of video games, and it's an interesting read to boot. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Tezero[edit]

Will do. Adding this to my to-do list. Tezero (talk)

  • Support as I don't really have any non-prose complaints other than to italicize "Game Informer" in source 51, especially because it's the magazine edition. (Granted, I haven't gone through the sources thoroughly at all; that one just stuck out.) Tezero (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Indrian[edit]

  • @Tezero:As this is Red's nom, I'll let him do any actual fixing of the article, but I do want to provide a little context on a couple of these points and add a few of my own thoughts as well.
    • "Retailed" is used as a verb all the time and is used properly in this context. I agree it looks odd though, which I believe is a result of a bad prepositional phrase after the verb. At the very least, it should read "retailed at lower" rather than "retailed for cheaper" and in this context it may still be better to do as you suggest and rewrite the sentence all together.
    • On the "technically superior" to the NES claim, I do not see any POV problems there at all, as hardware can be benchmarked, making this a provable fact and not mere opinion. I believe the statement is fine for the lead. However, there is a big problem in that I do not see the SMS compared to the NES in the body of the article, which is where a more detailed rundown would be appropriate. This should either be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead.
      • I've added a paragraph in the Technical specifications to address this. Had to actually research Famicom stats to do it, but I think it'll do the trick. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The quality title sentence is extremely problematic. The point the article is attempting to convey is that Sega was locked out of licensing games from all the big Japanese third-party publishers due to their exclusive relationships with Nintendo. The current version fails to get that point across.
    • I do not believe your Gulf and Western critique is actionable. G+W was an extremely well-known company that was one of the largest manufacturing and entertainment conglomerates in the world. In the mid-1980s it underwent a restructuring to focus strictly on entertainment and was renamed Paramount Communications. I imagine you have heard of Paramount, yes? Regardless, the company article is properly hyperlinked, so the curious reader can find out more about the company with the click of a button. As for the company name, it can be rendered as "Gulf and Western," "Gulf & Western," or "Gulf + Western," but should remain consistent throughout the article.
    • As for the sentence on being a top five arcade game manufacturer, this is by revenue generated by arcade cabinet sales in 1982. The top five were, if memory serves, Bally, Atari, Williams, Sega, and Stern Electronics. This needs to be sourced, however, for it to remain in the article.
      • I rephrased it to say it was one of the largest and combined it with the note on how much revenue it brought in. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I do not believe your complaint about Sega's revenue is actionable. Company revenues peaked at $214 million in 1982. Company revenues presumably started at $0 when the company was first incorporated. The sentence is merely giving the reader a sense of Sega's scale in the early 1980s to provide general background for the main subject. The article does not need a detailed accounting of Sega's finances at the time, as it is not directly relevant to the subject matter.
    • In the early 1980s, Sega Enterprises Inc. was an American company. Sega began as a Japanese company formed by the 1965 merger of two businesses founded by Americans in Japan. After being purchased by Gulf and Western in 1969, Sega moved its headquarters first to Hawaii, then Hong Kong, and finally to the Los Angeles area. Therefore, the Japanese operation was a subsidiary of Sega Enterprises, Inc., which in turn was a subsidiary of Gulf and Western. In 1984, Gulf and Western sold off the Japanese business, which became Sega Enterprises Ltd. This Japanese company is the entity we think of as Sega today, which is of course now a part of Sega Sammy. Not making any claim as to whether the article should be clearer on these points or not, but I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page in terms of the history.
    • I think it would be fair to say the differences between the SG-1000 and the SG-2000 were slight and the analogy to various Game Boy and PS models you use is accurate.
      • It likely is, and that's also why I bundled SG-1000 and SG-1000 II into one article and Mark III with this article, but because sources refer to them as different consoles except for Mark III and Master System, I would prefer to continue to refer to them as different consoles to remain consistent with the sourcing. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The article jumps straight to the release of the product because there is no development information on the SG-1000, the Mark III, or the Master System in English-language sources. The article is also thin on marketing strategy, sales performance and marketshare over time, and details on the system's success in Western Europe and Brazil. As such, I would tend to think this article fails the FA criteria on comprehensiveness grounds. I was happy to promote this to GA status earlier this year, but I certainly never felt it was FA-worthy at that time, and little has been done to expand the article since. Indrian (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Indrian: Wow, thanks for the show of support, I guess. I would encourage you to reread some sections of the article; I've done about as much as I can fleshing out the interior, but having scrounged as many reliable sources as I can find over and over, I'm not sure there's really that much to say. It would seem that Sega's marketing of the Master System was quite ineffective due to the size of their marketing department and Nintendo's established foothold, although Virgin Mastertronic had more luck marketing it in Europe where Nintendo had not been so effective. I've added bits from more sources into the article to reflect this. No, this article doesn't have a year-by-year breakdown like Sega Genesis does, but likewise I doubt the differences are quite so significant for this to be any different than what the overall says. There are a lot of figures already present to reflect the system's success in some regions and failure in others, and I've also fleshed out bits about the system's reception during its lifespan Aside from the development information which is absent from the sources, albeit with an enhanced background section, I wouldn't say it's any less comprehensive than Sega CD, which is also a featured article. In any regard, specific concerns on missing information can be brought to me and I'll do my best to flesh a particular part out; I really don't think it's missing much, if anything significant really at all, and that which is is because it doesn't exist in reliable sources and thus really isn't known for sure. If this article does fail on comprehensiveness grounds, then it's likely destined never to be a featured article unless new sources are written (which I've even found some in just the last couple of months), but I would rather try and see what the community thinks than to pass it off forever. Red Phoenix let's talk... 15:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't quite determine the tone of your first sentence, but I really do support your efforts to make these console articles better and believe you have done wonderful work on the SMS. I believe your recent additions have cured my concern regarding thin info on marketing by SOA and in Europe. I believe there is still a little more that can be said about the Tonka days, for which I believe reliable sources exist. There are also a couple of articles that give market share info at a couple points in the U.S. Also, the article fails to mention Atari, which is important, because there is a common misconception that Sega was second to Nintendo in the U.S. when in fact they were third. I would be happy to take a stab at some of this if you like. I do agree that the amount of detail in the Genesis article is not necessary since this system was an also ran.
The lack of development info is more troubling, though I am not sure what the answer is there. Clearly, the sources do not exist in English. I imagine there are at least some sources in Japanese, but that does not help the English-language Wikipedia. I certainly do not believe that a detailed blow-by-blow account filled with anecdotes is necessary, but right now there is absolutely nothing. Sega CD is a good example of a dev section on a less successful/less written about console that does a good job of placing the development in context while providing a couple of specific facts.
So, to summarize. Excellent job on the article, which mines most of the available sources well. There is more that can be said on U.S. market share and Tonka, which I am happy to help with. Development is at a stalemate. I am not sure I am comfortable supporting the article for FA without a little more in development, but I fully admit that this is an idiosyncratic view of the comprehensiveness requirement, which only requires the article to reflect what has appeared in reliable sources. I will certainly not oppose the article on those grounds, and would encourage anyone who thinks the article is up to snuff to add their own support. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As a minor note, Indrian, it's allowed to use foreign-language sources. The presumption is that you can understand them okay. Moreover, it seems that sources in foreign languages are given the benefit of the doubt more often when it comes to reliability, as an exercise in the tolerance we Anglophones are totally rightly known for. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The tone was merely disappointment, that's all, Indrian. It's not the way that I pictured this FAC starting out, but the end result is what matters. I have been considering the development issue, and I have to wonder if the reason we lack development info is because the Mark III/Master System wasn't developed outright. Bear with me on this as a theory, albeit original research at this point that may explain the problem: it's fairly common knowledge that the Master System uses an 8-bit Zilog Z80 as its processor; after all, that was also a sound chip on Sega's System 16 architecture that became the Sega Genesis. I also found in my research for SG-1000, a good article that will likely never be featured due to lack of sources, that the 1000 and 1000 II also used a Z80 running at the same speed. That may very well mean that when Retro Gamer refers to Sega continuing to work on their hardware for developing the Mark III, which became the Master System, that the same basic architecture was used. Now, to play devil's advocate here: the Mark III game library is different than the SG-1000 library and the SG-1000 can't play Mark III titles, but Mark III and Japanese Master Systems can play SG-1000 titles.
I would be more than glad to accept some help with adding more about Tonka and US market share; I've always been very thrilled to have your help with the articles I've focused on, to which I credit having several of my FAs because of your support with some of the material - namely, just about all of them have at least a paragraph or two from you. I'm sure I could use a bit of help with Atari, too - sources seem a little dodgy on it probably because Nintendo blew them so much out of the water that that's the main competitive focus in the articles.
Toward Tezero Absolutely no problem with foreign-language sources - this article uses at least one Portuguese source and several Japanese sources - but the point is that it's a lot harder to find sources in foreign languages when you don't speak it or read it. I can read English and Spanish (and somewhat navigate Portuguese based on similarities to Spanish), but that's it; I can't read Japanese. That makes it just that much harder to find. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And just to back up my theory on the system's development; from Sega themselves, note the model number for the Sega Mark III is "SG-1000M3" Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not fluent, but I can read a fair amount of it and have dug up Japanese-language sources before. I'll see if I can find anything, though I'm not optimistic as old development information in general isn't easy to come by. Tezero (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really finding anything reliable so far other than this thing on its sound chip, which looks redundant, and this, which looks to be about its programming (you might recognize "BASIC") but from which I can't select the words I don't know to Google-Translate. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, how's this revision? I think that'll do the basic job, at least ;) Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero:Thanks for looking into Japanese sources. I do not know if this will help, but two names you might want to include in your searches are Masami Ishikawa and Minoru Kidooka. According to the sparse English info available, both of them were working on console hardware at Sega during this period and may have had a hand in the Mark III/Master System. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Indrian: Sorry for the double ping, but I stumbled across more than I'd thought existed and put together some other information, and made a development section. It's not the greatest, but I think it should alleviate any concerns. Can you look it over, fact-check it, and make sure it's accurate? Thank you, Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem on the double ping. I think you have a valid point about the Master System being a continuation of the SG-1000, so I guess it is fair to say that the SG-1000 article would be the proper place for most of the development info I feel is lacking here. As such, I am more or less satisfied after the current rewrite. There is one important point, however that Edge gets wrong: Hideki Sato was not in charge of developing the system. The proof is in two parts. First, here is a Sega 16 profile on Sato that states he was not placed in charge of R&D until 1989. The article draws this information from a brief PDF biographical sketch linked at the bottom of the article. Unfortunately, the link is now dead and does not appear to be present in the Internet Archive. I have a copy of the original PDF and can confirm its contents. The PDF has no info that needs to be cited in this article, so I do not believe there is a need to actually produce it. The second proof is this article from Silinonera that is also used in the Genesis article. It states that Masami Ishikawa was Sega's lead hardware designer in this period. Sato may well have worked on the Master System, but he did not lead its design.
As for the rest, I will get a small amount of Tonka and sales info into the article, hopefully tomorrow, but Wednesday at the latest. After that, I will have to parse the rest of the article as well, but with the development matter cleared up, I believe I will be able to support eventually after all other concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed Sato from the mention just to be sure; thanks for the fact check. I'll be looking at the other concerns tomorrow or Tuesday; it's late where I'm at and I do have work in the morning. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: I have addressed your concerns. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Indrian I have also now addressed some of the issues that were brought up in your responses. I look forward to your great help in regard to the Atari 7800 and Tonka's marketing. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 403[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As part of my continued push towards a Featured Topic on Ontario's 400-series highways, I present Highway 403 - one of the first freeways planned for Ontario, but also one of the most disjointed and recently completed. This article just passed an A-Class review, so it should be relatively problem free. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • images have been thoroughly checked during ACR (thanks for that).
  • images are PD or CC "own work" or Canadian Crown Copyright and have source/author information - OK.
  • map information includes source data - OK.
  • (fixed one tiny, redundant commons category myself).

(Just fyi: the article talkpage still shows "initiate the nomination" in the FAC-template. Maybe it still needs updating (or something went wrong during the nomination) - resolved, slow bot). GermanJoe (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Barn owl[edit]

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a well-known bird found nearly worldwide which here in the UK has almost iconic status. I have spent much time expanding the article and (hopefully) improving it and nominated it for GA back in July. Unfortunately the backlog there meant it has not been reviewed and after seven weeks I decided to bring it straight to FAC. This means you had better be extra pernickety in pointing out its faults! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I'm very pleased to see a FAC for this important bird. These are some initial thoughts.

  • It would be better if the article used a structure similar to that recommended by WikiProject Birds: Taxonomy, Description, Distribution and habitat, Behaviour, Breeding, Food and feeding, Threats or Survival, Relationship to humans, Status. Some of this is arbitrary but many bird FAs use this model and the existing heading of Ecology with 5 subheadings is odd.
I have rearranged the sections and their titles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the "Lifespan and predators" section on the posturing of an angry owl seems out of place.
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the article in British English or US English? It has "colour" and "neighboring".
Its trying to be British! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope to return with more comments. Aa77zz (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I look forward to more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more comments:

  • The taxonomy content of the Taxonomy and etymology section needs to be expanded. How does the barn owl relate to other owls?
Partially done. I have difficulty relating it to other species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Locally superabundant ..".[3][30][31][32][33][34]. Are six cites needed?
Reduced to 3. I could replace them all with the excellent Taylor but am endeavouring to use a variety of sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The References section has many small problems with inconsistency of the formatting.
Working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fn 7 and 12 cite Mátics & Hoffmann (2002) - which is only detailed in Fn 25.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some sources are not suitable - Fn 38 Physics Today, Fn 39 UF News
Removed or replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dunning (1992) need page numbers
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bibliography - formatting needs to be consistent - chapter title should be in quotes etc - I suggest cite book for all.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When these are sorted I'll read the whole article through carefully. Aa77zz (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The expandable subspecies list lacks citations for much of the content. Is this all from Bruce? If so then perhaps there should be a general cite somewhere at the top of the table. Aa77zz (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The subspecies information all comes from Bruce. In a GAN I did recently I was told to give a citation for each of the subspecies in the table so I have done this for barn owl. However I have now put an additional citation before the collapsible table. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Taxonomy and the IOC

The quote in the Taxonomy section "a review of the whole group [is] long overdue" dates from 1999. In the last 15 years a number of articles have been published that look at DNA sequences.

The Wikiproject guide states that the IOC World Bird List should be used for taxonomy. The current list (Version 4.3) divides the subspecies into two groups, one species Tyto alba called the Western Barn Owl and the other species Tyto delicatula called the Eastern Barn Owl. The Eastern species includes as subspecies T. d. sumbaensis, T. d. meeki, T. d. crassirostris and T. d. interposita. However, it seems that the IOC have doubts as a note states that the split of Tyto delicatula from T. alba "may need to be revisited". The reference to Wink et al 2004b in the notes appears to be an error as the article only has alba is here. A key article appears to be:

Wink, Michael; El-Sayed, Abdel-Aziz; Sauer-Gürth, Hedi; Gonzalez, Javier (2009). "Molecular Phylogeny of Owls (Strigiformes) Inferred from DNA Sequences of the Mitochondrial Cytochrome b and the Nuclear RAG-1 gene". Ardea 97 (4): 581–591. doi:10.5253/078.097.0425.  (if you don't have access send me an email)

From this article it appears that the subspecies are split in the book Weick F. 2006. Owls (Strigiformes). Annotated and illustrated checklist. Springer.

The delicatula split hasn't been adopted by the online version of Handbooks of Birds of the World which lists 28 subspecies of T. alba. I don't have a subscription and thus cannot see whether this is discussed in the article.

I have no experience of how these cases are handled on Wiki. Perhaps Jimfbleak may be able to advise. I know he has access to HBW. The wiki article certainly needs to mention the split and use up-to-date sources. Bruce is too old here. Aa77zz (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I will work on this. I have access to the barn owl article in HBW which is said to have been updated in 2014. If I used that year rather than 1999 in the citation would that help? I don't have access to the article you mention above so am sending you an email. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a more recent reference (without the quote) would be an improvement. I also think that "While this may be warranted, such a move should await further research into barn owl phylogeography." seems a little like editorializing.
I do not know how closely wikipedia articles adhere to the IOC list but to do so would mean splitting off T. a. delicatula as a separate species (as has been done on French wiki). König & Weick (2008) also split off the American Barn Owl (T. furcata). The IOC note that the "split of American Barn Owl furcata from alba under consideration". I think we need input from other editors as to whether to follow the IOC. The fact that Tyco alba has the greatest distribution of any bird is suspicious - it seems a little surprising (to a very much non-expert) that a bird species that does not migrate could have a world-wide distribution. Aa77zz (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This book splits the subspecies:

  • König, Claus; Weick, Friedhelm (2008). Owls of the World (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm. ISBN 978-0-7136-6548-2.  (note that I've used the cite book template)

but uses "Common Barn Owl" for Tyto alba and "Austalian Barn Owl" for Tyto delicatula. The book contains an article on phylogeny by Michael Wink. A Google Preview is available here. Aa77zz (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to explain the situation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fn 3 The Owl Pages is cited 6 times. The author, Deane Lewis, states that he is an avid amateur wildlife and nature photographer and part-time web developer. I don't think this is a suitable source for this article. Aa77zz (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fn 11 is unsuitable. It is cited for the general description, length and wingspan of the bird. There are much better sources for this information. Aa77zz (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (1 request Done)

  • All images are PD or CC, with sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
  • File:Schleiereule-Tyto_alba-World.png - assuming the ranges are taken from common literature, could you add a source book to the image information (WP:V)? GermanJoe (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the source information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

This species needed a proper article, and you have put plenty of work into this. A few quibbles though.

  • It is also referred to as the common barn owl, to distinguish it from other species in the barn owl family Tytonidae which—You could avoid a repetition by something like "in its family Tytonidae"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • and by some authors its Lesser Antilles populations insularis and nigrescens still are.—clunky structure
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • a varying amount of tiny blackish-brown speckles—"speckle" is a countable noun, "number", not "amount"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • usually at altitudes below 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) ASL—the acronym and link seem unnecessarily complicated, either write out "sea level" or just leave it out as assumed
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • on a rocky island off the coast of California—named?
I don't know. The incident is mentioned at greater length in Taylor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the cited article the incident took place on Castle Rock, off Crescent City, California. The short paragraph published in the Condor is available online here. I checked the reference as only one page was specified - which turned out to be correct - but the author's name was misspelled and the year was wrong. The author "disposed of the owlets" - which isn't quite "was successfully reared" as stated in the wiki article. Aa77zz (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is also available from JSTOR. Taylor provides an incorrect reference which has been copied into the article without checking. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pound for pound, barn owls consume more rodents—I don't like the US version, "weight for weight" or "kilo for kilo" would be better
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • the nests of other birds such as the hamerkop—add "large" before "nest"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While the barn owl is a prolific breeder and able to recover from short-term population decreases, they are
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing about parasites, there is plenty out there, eg this
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [23][24][7]—This is not in numerical order (I didn't check whether there were others
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bruce, M. D. (1999) has the page numbers in the bibliography, the other books have them in the short form, looks inconsistent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 30 has an incorrectly formatted link which appears to be dead anyway
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I may be away for a couple of days, so no rush to respond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Æthelstan A[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an anonymous scribe in tenth-century England. His elaborate charters are a key source for the history of King Æthelstan's reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed this article for GAN, and observed at the time that it could go to FAC. Since then the nominator has further refined the text, which to my layman's eye is comprehensive; the prose is a pleasure to read, the balance is sound, the sourcing wide and scholarly, and the images are as good as we are going to get for an article about a person whose identity we don't even know. There are two block quotations from different scholars, and I wondered at first if they should be paraphrased, but on closer reading I think not: the first (Keynes) is so precise that paraphrasing it while remaining on the right side of WP rules would be impossible, I suspect, and the second (Gretsch) has a splendid, robust flavour that it would be a pity to lose. I infer (reasonably confidently) from the red-links in the lead that we can look forward to two new articles from the nominator on related topics; I hope so. – Tim riley talk 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. About the red links, I am not sure whether they should stay. They certainly need articles, and I was intending to work on them next, but I have changed my mind. They relate to the later tenth century, which I am less familiar with, and I think it would be better to get the earlier period (including Alfred the Great - a major project) out of the way first. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
A pity in one way – I can never remember for five consecutive minutes what "hermeneutic" means, however often I look it up, and it would be nice to have an article – but on the other hand an FAC on such a major figure as King Alfred will be more than ample compensation. Bring it on, as I believe the modern saying is. Anyway, warm applause, as above, for the article at present before us, with or without the red-links. Tim riley talk 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately hermeneutic style is a misleading name as it has nothing to do with hermeneutics, which is the theory of text interpretation (whatever that is). The elaborate and abstruse style of Latin popular in later Anglo-Saxon England went out of fashion after the Conquest, and William of Malmesbury described it as barbarous. It used to be called the Hibernian style, but scholars did not like that as it was not particularly Irish, and someone came up with the name 'hermeneutic'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That letter is not in the alphabet that most English readers know. I strongly suggest having an explanation of some sort of how to read that letter. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume this refers to "Æ". I am not sure how to deal with it. It has not been raised - so far as I know - with other articles which have Æ, but I see a couple of them such as Ælle of Sussex have the pronunciation. Does anyone know how to do this? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this is right, but I'd wait to see if an expert can confirm or amend: /ˈæθəlstæn/ Tim riley talk 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Tim. Very helpful as always. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case Æ is still a part of English, just a somewhat old-fashioned part. You needn't look too hard to find a text that uses it, e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Images are both in the public domain and appropriately captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oxford College of Emory University[edit]

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see this article become featured status. Thank you all in advance for reviewing and making sure that this article meets the criteria! haha169 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
  • File:Oxfordcollegelogo.svg: FUR could be more expansive - in particular the "n.a." [parameters should be filled in, they are at least partially applicable
    • Done
  • File:Oxford_city_plan_(1837).jpg: archival images are often not published near the time of their creation - when/where was this first published?
    • I don't feel like this was ever published, except for being viewable at the Emory University archives, so I switched the template to PD-old, based on the death of the author plus 100 years. Is this acceptable?
  • File:IsaacSHopkins.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, without which we cannot conclude that the author died over 70 years ago
    • I don't know, so I just removed the image
  • File:Yun_Chi-ho's_1910's.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Done

Thank you for your image review. Please let me know if you need anything else! --haha169 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

American paddlefish[edit]

Nominator(s): AtsmeConsult 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the planktivorous American paddlefish, a relict species of ray-finned fish native to North America. American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) are one of only two remaining taxa in the Polyodontidae family, and the only living species in the genus Polyodon. They are among the largest and longest lived freshwater fishes in North America. They have been extirpated from most of their historic range, and are currently listed as vulnerable (VU A3de ver 3.1) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The article is comprehensive, and provides a broad scope of useful information about a species that has remained relatively unchanged for over sixty million years. The article recently received a GA rating. AtsmeConsult 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Paddlefish_distribution.png: where did the data for this map come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The data comes from government sources, including the US Geological Survey, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and numerous other government sources. Example can be seen here [3] AtsmeConsult 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seemed appropriate now that the centenary of World War I is upon us to nominate this article on the RAAF's premier squadron, formed under the Australian Flying Corps in 1916. It's been active almost continually since then, and operated the formidable F-111 for 37 years, but the last time it saw action was during the Malayan Emergency -- that is of course unless the Australian government acts on suggestions to deploy Super Hornets to the Middle East, in which case it'd be a foregone conclusion that personnel and aircraft from this unit would form the commitment. As deployment is still only speculation, through, I haven't mentioned it in the text as yet. Tks to everyone who's contributed to the article through their edits and/or reviews, especially its recent MilHist A-Class assessment, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Follow-up: A decision to deploy as many as eight of the squadron's Super Hornets has now been made, and the article updated accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (2 points Done)

  • File:1SqnRAAFCrest.png - rationale for identification is OK, but the information should include the current copyright owner (per fair-use policy). The source website is under "© Commonwealth of Australia 2012", probably with all its content? Suggest to use Template:non-free use rationale (optional, but helps to keep the information structured).
    • Added copyright details. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:RAAF_Canberra_(AWM_128866).JPG - exact year is unknown, but could you add an estimated date of creation? We need to be sure, it is pre-1955 (or meets one of the other PD-Australia points).
    • Yes, there's practically no information from the source so I'm just offering reasonably well-informed opinion here that would support the AWM's declaration of PD: the tailfin flash suggests the aircraft belongs to No. 2 Squadron (try as I might I found no images of No. 1 Squadron Canberras); No. 2 Squadron equipped with Canberras in 1953 and deployed to Vietnam in 1967, when its colour scheme was changed from silver to camouflage, so we can estimate the photo was taken between 1953 and 1967. That being the case I think we can safely assume the PD status is due to it being taken before 1955 (PD-Australia clauses A/B), or between 1955 and 1969 under Commonwealth auspices (PD-Australia clause E). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Other images are all OK. CC "own work", PD-Australia (point A) and PD-USGov. Sources and authors (where known) provided. GermanJoe (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I polished those two a bit and added your background info on the estimated date of creation. All OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks again, Joe -- good to see you back at FAC BTW! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • No citations to Isaacs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Gratefully removed -- this has to be one of the longest ref lists I've ever employed... Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Turquoise parrot[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Have brought this up from a stub, which I created. Feel it is up to par for Bird FAs. I will fix things pronto. Go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some odd formatting with FN21 in the article text
Nikkimariasorry, you've lost me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • GBooks links can generally be truncated after page number
  • FN23 returns 404 error
damn, that's just gone link/page now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
added locations now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FN14: more specific location?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FN19: check formatting of quotes within titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright-wise all images are OK, PD or CC with sufficient source and author information. Flickr-images show no signs of problems.

  • one more (sr): ref #32 should be changed into a template:sfn reference for consistency. GermanJoe (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual sound article, a few quibbles though.

  • The turquoise parrot (Neophema pulchella) is a parrot of the grass parrot genus Neophema —Triple repetition of "parrot" in one sentence. Suggest replacing second occurrence by "bird", and linking "parrot" in the next sentence.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • potential nesting sites removed.—"lost"?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sydney district at the time of settlement in 1788—I assume you mean European settlement
oops...fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • la Perruche Edwards—italics for French name?
italicised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • impossible to represent this suprb little creature—is the typo in the original?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The upperparts resemble the adult female—"those of..." or "kilo for kilo" would be better
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing about parasites? Parrots are usually well studied for these
there is a pathogens section toward the bottom. It mentions a nematode too. it was slim pickings with this one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the American television sitcom Temperatures Rising which aired on the ABC network from 1972 to 1974. The series, which I think is very funny, has an interesting history in that it went through three different formats and cast line-ups during its two year run. I rewrote the article several months ago so that a more comprehensive history of the show is presented. I would now like to bring the article up to feature length status. This is my second attempt to do so. The initial attempt was unsuccessful due to a lack of support. So please help if you can by offering some suggestions on what I can do to improve it. Jimknut (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ɱ

While I agree with Nikkimaria and Ian Rose that articles should generally go through GA first, I'll make comments here. My first FAC was closed due to few comments and I'd hate to see it happen many more times.

They may be right but I'm someone who thinks along the lines of David O. Selznick: "There are only two kinds of class: First class and no class."
So I think with my Briarcliff articles, although I'm willing to take the steps along the way for them to reach such a class as FA. It makes the process easier.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Temperatures Rising.jpg should have a better description of the image and of the source, and the source link should be to here. The description page should also say who the copyright owner is, if that can be found.
    • I reworked this so that the fair use description reads like the second season photo. I do not know who the original publisher is.
I'm going to add back in the URL, that helps people find the image at its original source.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • commons:File:Cleavon Little Jayne Meadows Temperatures Rising 1972.JPG wasn't actually published, posting on Ebay or an image hosting site doesn't mean that it's published. This means that the PD-Pre1978 license doesn't apply. Perhaps try to find another.
    • This one was already being used in the article when I began the upgrades. Since it is in Wiki Commons I think it's safe to use, although I don't think it's as crucial to the article as the first and second season cast photos.
That won't pass any FA review anywhere. Try to find another license, otherwise it should be deleted. Just being on Commons doesn't mean anything.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Photos from around 1973 usually aren't, even with the details that you list on the image description page.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Other remarks

  • There were a lot of odd spaces that I'm removing, and I added portals to this. I'll see what other changes I can make.--ɱ (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, did a few more things. The prose and style looks good, as does the formatting. I'm going to look at the references next.--ɱ (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You have three block quotations that should be put inside some template. There are a few options, perhaps the best lies at Template:Quote. I checked most of your references, but only the ones to web sources, there are quite a few print ones. Of the web references, they all appear well-cited and formatted; I doubt I can find problems with your references.--ɱ (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I had these in quote boxes but the person that peer reviewed the article said they look intrusive. Hence I took them out and added them into the main flow of the text. The bulk of my sources came from the Los Angeles Times. These actually can be accessed on-line for a fee or for free through the Los Angeles County Library system. I did the latter. Also, since the LA Times is a major newspaper, many public libraries will probably carry it on microfilm. (Furthermore, I copied the articles and saved them as files on my computer so anyone that really wants to do so can request me to email these to him or her.)
That quote template doesn't really remove the text from the rest of the prose like other quote templates. I also believe that quote templates are preferred in articles over the simple formatting in place right now.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Under the "Reviews" section, did the LA Times call it the "worse show" or the "worst show"?--ɱ (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"Worst." I fixed it.
  • After reading through the article, it's clear that the prose is very well written, there are abundant inline citations, appropriate wikilinks, etc. I don't think that the article should be split into two different shows, it's clear that it was one show that underwent recasting and a slight name variant. Splitting the article would just make readers' understanding of that poorer. As well, the article only has 12kb of readable prose, which is far below norms for splitting an article. I'll give my official support of this article once the above points are addressed.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, although the show has not been officially released on DVD there are episodes available from private collectors. A few have been posted on YouTube. In my opinion, one of the funniest is "Ellen's Flip Side" Take a look and have a laugh … or two … or three … (Nancy Fox is extremely cute and adorable).Jimknut (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would add back the quote boxes. This show reminds me of one that aired around the same time, Fawlty Towers. That show's quite good, and is available on Netflix among other sites. Check it out if you can.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen Fawlty Towers. It is indeed a very funny show. Getting back to Temperatures Rising, however, I changed the first two quotes by putting them into boxes. The third I added into the main text. Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic. I do think that Template:Quote might look better, and will have it more similar to how you had it before. An example of that (which I just put on) is at Edward W. Hooper.--ɱ (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Reworked again using Template:Quote. It does look better. Jimknut (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

() Okay, now after a thorough review of the article, I can give my full support of this becoming a Featured Article. Good job.--ɱ (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll actually stress this-very well done, it's all written and sourced very well. No complaints here; this well deserves to become a FA.--ɱ (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Yunshui  07:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Japanese temple bells. I've been working on it on and off for a while now, and have finally decided to see whether it can be pushed to FA status. I've not had anything much to do with FA before now, so would appreciate any and all assistance and suggestions. Yunshui  07:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick comment (I hope to review this at a later date): Jigoku is a dab link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That was sort of intentional (since the only place we have an entry on Jigoku meaning "Hell" is at that dab page). However, since it's piped anyway, I don't see that it matters if I change the target to Diyu instead, which I've now done. Cheers, look forward to your review. Yunshui  14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll try and finish the cancer article first, then come here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Image review (if I don't mention an image, it's fine).
    • File:Chikanobu The Giant Bell.jpg - Needs a Japanese PD tag.
    • File:Hokoji-BellDetail-M1767.jpg - When was this bell created, and by who? When did the creator die? Japan only allows non-commercial FOP for "artistic works" (and these bells would certainly fit that definition) so we need to be sure of the copyright of the bell. File:RyoanJi-Kane.jpg this too.
    • File:Japanese Peace Bell cropped.PNG - 1952 installation... is there a copyright notice? There's no FOP in the US for non-architectural works, and assuming the structure is past the threshold of originality (arguable, perhaps, but to be safe let's assume it is) we'd need to know if there was a copyright notice before we could claim this is free to photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you know, it hadn't even occurred to me that pictures of bells would fall under the same provisos as pictures of sculptures - but you're absolutely right, of course. I've added a {{PD-Japan}} to the Chikanobu image, so that's dealt with. The Hokoji inscription dates to the seventeenth century (see the accompanying article text and source) so shouldn't be an issue; I've added a {{PD-art-3d}} tag to it.
The Ryoanji bell was (I believe) cast as part of the temple's 500th anniversary celebrations, which would have been in 1950, so I'm guessing that it isn't public domain (how it managed to get to be Picture of the Day without anyone picking up on this is beyond me). I'm uncertain what would constitute appropriate tagging in this case; I've considered {{Non-free 3D art}} but I'm not sure that the picture's use in this article meets the strictest interpretation of the fair use requirements. Suggestions on the best course of action would be welcomed!
I think I'll remove the Peace Bell image altogether; I've never been very happy with it. Yunshui  07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we know who cast the Ryoanji bell? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a clue. I had a good look around this morning, but none of the Japanese bell-making companies I'm aware of seem to have taken the credit. Yunshui  07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Mind you, there are a number of other images of bonsho available on Commons - I don't have time right now, but when I do I'll see what alternatives are available. The Ryoanji image is probably the best-quality one, but there are others that would suffice to illustrate the article. Yunshui  07:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm must say, it's a pleasure to have a reviewer who knows their stuff with regards to image copyright... I've run several searches through the U.S. Copyright Office and am now fairly convinced that there is, as you say, no registered U.S. copyright. I'll therefore follow your suggestion above and add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and {{PD-Japan}} to the image file.
  • Prose comments
    • "Bonshō 梵鐘 (Buddhist bells?)," why not Bonshō (Japanese: 梵鐘?, Buddhist bells). The later one can be tsurigane (釣り鐘?, hanging bells) and ōgane (大鐘 great bells?), and so on. I mean, the shift from the standard text to the Latin script in Japanese unicode is pretty jarring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • bosses - I'd link this
    • In modern times, they have become symbols of World Peace. - this could be read as the previously mentioned bells and not the bonsho in general
    • sixth century CE - lead has the earliest at "around 700 c.e." meaning at least a hundred years difference.
    • The bonshō is believed to have been derived from the bianzhong ... this bell would eventually develop into the bonshō. - These two clauses are slightly contradictory: the first offers a likelihood, whereas the second offers a certainty
    • 1050 °C - Fahrenheit?
    • sutras - link recommended
    • World Peace Bell Association - worth a redlink?
    • The use of Japanese temple bells in such works has been seen as an attempt to replace the now-common sound of the orchestral tam-tam. - by whom?
    • A bronze bonshō was among the gifts presented to Commodore Matthew Perry upon his arrival in Japan. - can this be merged somewhere? I mean, single sentence paragraphs look rough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I've now addressed all of the points above (in this edit, for ease of review). Yunshui  07:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What about the nihongo templates in the body of the text? Do you prefer having the different font, or...? Everything else looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops. I've now reformatted all of the nihongo templates with English translation text attached. Yunshui  12:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, looking good now. I've cleaned up the image pages. If you'd just be so kind to add an information template to Hokoji, I'm ready to support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thought I had - but apparently not. This editing in fits and starts doesn't suit me... Done now. Yunshui  17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't find it. I meant this. Anyways, without being a subject expert I can't comment on comprehensiveness, other than to say that I found this very informational. In terms of images and prose quality, I support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Thanks very much for the support, but more importantly, for the critique. Yunshui  10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • FN3, 33: most refs don't include location
  • Be consistent in whether authors are presented first or last name first
  • FN8: title given doesn't match that in the link, can you verify?
  • Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case
  • FN18: why the additional quote marks in the title?
  • FN25: URL can be truncated after page number
  • FN25: are we missing part of the journal title here?
  • FN36: what is the title and author of the specific article being cited from LIFE?
  • FN37 returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I think I've now addressed all of the above to the best of my ability. Yunshui  10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Chandralekha (1948 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I intend to take this article about a 1948 mega-budget Indian film to featured status because of its historical significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Conditional support from Graham Colm[edit]

  • The prose is engaging and well written. It shows evidence of an accomplished copy-editor. I think FA criterion 1a has been satisfied, but the quotations are distracting, particularly the long one at the end and the one in the box. The one at the start of the Legacy section has a good impact and is of appropriate length. The nominator might want to consider using the information given in the long quotes in a less direct manner.
Will do as promised. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I find much significance in the quote box's quote, and it seems very impossible to trim it down. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course this is a new subject for me, but the article seems comprehensive; very much so in fact.
  • The prose is encyclopaedic and there is no evidence of disputes regarding content or bias.
  • It is compliant with our style guidelines apart from my concern about the quotations.
  • We need to double check our policy on the use of You Tube as a source (as opposed to a published disc) and one of our regulars with a keener eye than mine needs to check the formatting.
Can I use the official DVD as a source instead? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably better, but of course the You Tube link is useful as long as the film is out of copyright. Graham
  • I think two of the images may be a cause for concern: The screen shot and the poster from Japan are tagged.
But the Japan poster satisfies two of the criteria for Japan PD: It was published after 1946 and before 1956. Does that settle it? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
We need to see a "clean" source page - no tags. Graham
  • The length is appropriate for a film article.

I would be interested in reading any comments from our Film regulars and will be pleased to add my full support later. I think the prospects for promotion are looking good. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Image comment

A recent discussion on Commons supported keeping URAA-affected images and rejected mass-deletions of such material. However, i am not sure how "final" this decision will be in a year or two. Featured articles should have the best images possible (including their copyright situation). Even if such images are "tolerated" for now on Commons, i am not sure they qualify as featured material here on en-Wiki. The whole URAA-situation is a grandiose mess and almost impossible to handle by average editors (including myself).

Considering this background, i suggest to:

  • add a date to the FUR-description parameter of the infobox image.
I don't understand. You mean to write the date of the poster? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My bad, the template doesn't even show this kind of background information. Removed that point, please ignore. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • change the drumming screenshot information on en-Wiki to contain a detailed fair-use rationale.
The same image now exists on Wikimedia Commons as this, where I think it is properly tinted and licensed. I have nominated the Wikipedia image for deletion. Any admin may delete it ASAP. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned, the whole URAA-situation and its handling is less than clear. Fair-use would probably still be is the better approach here. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As currently written, our policies and guidelines consider images to be free only if they are free in the US, regardless of their status in their country of origin. See for example WP:NUSC. Per GermanJoe we likely will need to hold a Wikipedia-wide discussion about how the changes on Commons might affect our practices here, but for the moment this image is not free in the US and can only be used under a fair-use claim here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • remove the second movie poster (in "Marketing") for now. GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed, even though I thought it satisfies PD-Japan by being published before 1956. But how are all the Godzilla posters' ([4], [5] and [6]) PD-Japan status still being accepted, while this image is not? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of images on Commons still have dubious or incomplete copyright information - checking and maintenance is done only by a few interested volunteers. We can't assume, all images are OK there and need to double-check them ourselves. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • I have not read the whole article yet. In the lead, it's mentioned that the film was filmed in Tamil and later in Hindi. Does that mean that there were two versions of the film that were shot separately? Or, was the Tamil film dubbed in hindi?
Yes, the Hindi version was shot instead of being dubbed, according to sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I read the Filming section of the article. There is nothing written about separate shooting of hindi version (unless I missed any passing mention). Who directed that version? Were the actors same? I am not convinced yet. Can you tell which sources say so?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Vasan directed both the versions. Though some sources (G. Dhananjayan's The Best of Tamil Cinema, this article by Mohan V. Raman and this article in The Tribune) state the Hindi version as being shot, a famous director told Baradwaj Rangan in Conversations with Mani Ratnam that Chandralekha was "dubbed, I think. Or maybe it was partially remade", while this Hindu article claims that it was "the first South Indian film to be dubbed into Hindi." What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see there are some details in the section titled difference between two versions. Still, some info may be needed in the filming section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No source explains in detail about the changes to the Hindi version. As far as I know, there was a slight change in cast (N. S. Krishnan and T. A. Madhuram were omitted in the Hindi version, in favour of Yashodhara Katju and H. K. Chopra). But is it good that the section stay? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it's a very difficult problem. We are not sure whether the hindi version was totally remade, or just dubbed, or in between: portions remade and portions dubbed. I think the best thing to do would be to add an explanatory note and state that sources differ in defining the extent of remake or dub. Then mention the differences between the sources, as you have explained above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: Dwaipayan, look at the "Release" section now. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the language of the film should be mentioned win the very first (or, second) sentence of the lead. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Written as how? I think the sentence should be as short as possible. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I would try to suggest something later. In any case, it is not as important an issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Editor 2050[edit]

  • Very well-researched article about a very monumental Tamil film, looking as complete as it can be. Is there no scope for further images? Editor 2050 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Editor 2050, I wish that those images are out of copyright throughout the whole world; only then I can use them here (sadly, PD-India does not mean that an image free in India is necessarily free worldwide). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Editor 2050, to every Indian film buff's joy, an image of the drum dance now exists in the article because of the scene's popularity and significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AB01[edit]

  • don't think we need the three characters' names in the lead
Maybe, but FA's like Sholay and Mughal-e-Azam do so, don't they? why this be different? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "began in the early 1940s, when (comma should be here, instead of where it is now) after two successive"
Done: Written as "began in the early 1940s when, after two successive hits". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • first sentence under Development is ambiguous. did both the films collect 4 crore (each/collectively?), or the latter only?
Done: Written that the films netted profits of INR 4 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • is it important to mention that Janaki is the future wife of M. G. Ramachandran?
Done: removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • second last sentence from "Casting"-->i'd reword it as "V. S. Susheela, Varalakshmi and Velayutham, in addition to "100 Gemini Boys
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Kittoo said about Ramnoth's work, "In those days, we ..."--> the date of the interview is necessary here.
Unfortunately, no date available. What is the only alternative? Remove the whole quote? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I'd write "In retrospect, Kittoo said..." AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it redirects there. I want some ambitious editor to develop an article on the most expensive Indian films ever made. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Carnatic, Hindusthani [sic], Bharatnatyam, Latin American and Portuguee folk music, as well as the Struass [sic] Waltz"--> all these words should be wikilinked, cos I don't know what they are, haha.
They are already linked in the start of the music section. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Marketing" section, it's written that newspaper publicity was Rs. 574,500 and Rs. 500,000 on publicity, but the next line says the "entire publicity budget" was Rs. 25,000. I don't quite understand that. And then it says the entire publicity for most films is Rs. 100,000, which is supposedly 1/10th of 25,000???
This source may have the answers. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Under "Marketing", from "An abridged English-language version of Chandralekha..." to the entire last para of the section--> I think this info should be under "Release". I don't see how it relates to marketing
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I would also shift the entire last para of Marketing, since it is concerned with the film's release AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean the Japan episode? I have shifted it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know how well Apoorva Sagodharargal was received commercially and/or critically; if you can find info on it
Done: Written that it was also a commercial success. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a question purely out of interest; how long was the sword fight? AB01 I'M A POTATO 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No source mentions the exact amount; but after watching the scene again, can I write the amount based on my own analysis? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
If you have time, that would be awesome; I was just asking out of curiosity AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: Written its duration as at least two minutes. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wait, you didn't actually have to write in how long it was. I was only asking cos I personally wanted to know. It'd be better to remove it..sorry for the confusion AB01 I'M A POTATO 08:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, one more suggestion-->I'd change the heading "Release" to "Reception" and change "Reception" to "Release and box office". AB01 I'M A POTATO 08:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

All comments resolved, so I can give my support (on text/content). You're a good writer, Kailash :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment images - all OK[edit]

I am sorry for the back and forth hassle caused by the complex URAA-situation. But File:Chandralekha_drum_dance.jpg still needs to be copied to a local en-Wiki version with "fair-use" rationale. (Done) While Commons may accept such images now, WP:image use policy only allows 4 distinct types of images:

  • own work or
  • freely licensed by the copyright owner or
  • public domain in the USA or
  • used with an appropriate, detailed "fair-use" rationale.

The current usage would fail all 4 points and would be a copyright violation under US law. If you need any help with the FUR or have further questions, please let me know. The infobox image is OK, so this is the only remaining image problem. GermanJoe (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So the final word: because the drum dance scene is the film's most recognised element and an image of it will stay in the article, can I upload it as a non-free file here? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Images with copyright problems will very likely not pass any FA-nomination (atleast none has passed in the last few years). But this image is usable under en-Wiki "fair-use" rules, avoiding any possible copyright problems: The drum dance as a central element of the movie, its reception and its influence on later movies are all mentioned in some detail in the article. Without an image the reader can't possibly visualize its setup. So the image meets all points of WP:NFCC, after a detailed rationale is added on en-Wiki (maybe you'll need a slightly different filename to avoid a naming conflict with the current Commons image). GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: this is the new file. I request any admin to delete the other one commons. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Status updated accordingly - thanks for providing a detailed rationale. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 69 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  05:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This the third of Michigan's four mainline Interstate Highways, and it's also the only state section of Interstate 69 that's complete in the US now that the highway is being extended to Mexico.The article has undergone expansing to fill it out before a GAN and an ACR in the last year. With any necessary minor adjustments, it should be good to go for the bronze star. Imzadi 1979  05:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I thoroughly reviewed the prose for grammar, spelling, flow and consistency at ACR. In addition, I requested several things to clarify the history, all of which were delivered. Most important to me is the map that is currently the third image in the history section, which provides a quick visual reference to the technical and detailed synopsis alongside. I requested this map with a pending support at ACR, and am pleased to see it in place. Despite being a WP:HWY member, I wish to emphasize an "external" support for how well this article informs me of the relevant geographical information without even requiring an external map. Very few geographical articles can achieve this so comprehensively, which is why I have taken the time to write this extended support. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent page, meets all the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • images are CC "own work", verified via OTRS, PD-USGov or various forms of PD-age - OK.
  • sources and authors provided - OK.
  • map information includes source data - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer[edit]

Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth most prevalent cancer in women, very highly viewed and quite important. The article has been improved substantially in the past weeks by a peer review, GA review, and an expert review from Cancer Research UK. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, Kei, I guess I'll review this... but we all know I don't know anything about medicine (the ear bone's connected to the ... what now?)
  • Globally, as of 2012, endometrial cancers occurred in 320,000 women and caused 76,000 deaths. - "As of" would be present tense, as it is something that holds true or we expect to hold true. I'd use "in 2012" as the numbers can change dramatically from year to year.
  • What's with all the hidden refs? When at the end of a paragraph, one would expect a footnote (i.e. Abnormal menstrual periods or extremely long, heavy, or frequent episodes of bleeding in women before menopause may also be a sign of endometrial cancer.)
  • For those at the end of a paragraph (such as the one I quoted) I'd make the ref apparent. People generally assume that a ref doesn't cover paragraphs before the paragraph in which the ref is located. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symptoms, other than bleeding, do not occur commonly. - "Commonly do not occur" or "there are few in common" or... I feel this could probably be reworked
  • You really need to check for duplicate links. I've gotten two or three in the same paragraph. I'm not removing any more as there are too many.
  • by 3-4 times - by 300 to 400%, or another reworking. "By 3 to 4 times" just feels off
  • Ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer - why the extra "cancers"? Couple instances of this
  • There is a loose association because breast and ovarian cancers are often treated with tamoxifen. - the treatment causes the illness? That's what it reads like to me. What you intend (I think) is that the treatment of another kind of cancer (tamoxifen) can cause endometrial cancer, but that's not what the wording conveys to me. The connection only becomes clear in the following paragraph
  • Women with this disorder have a 5-10% lifetime risk of developing endometrial cancer. - as opposed to ...?
Done As opposed to a normal 2-3% risk, clarified.
  • is not currently significant - when, exactly, is "currently"?
  • CDKN2A are both dablinks
  • 10-20% of endometrial cancers, - I'd refactor to avoid starting sentences with numerals
  • 20% of endometrioid - again
  • 8-30% of atypical - again
  • Why does the Mani source not have vol, issue, and page numbers?
It was an e-publication ahead of print - I don't think it's been printed yet.
  • Hmm... wouldn't most e-publications still have such information? I know my own such publications have had the volume and issue easily accessible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: For some reason it doesn't. I'm confused too... Keilana|Parlez ici 17:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Article in press"... if it weren't for the publication saying it's alright to cite, I'd be wary... who's to say that there will be no major changes in the process? Anywho, it looks fine to me in this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The single-sentence or single paragraphs sections a bit further south look really rough. Any way to either expand and/or merge?
If you're referring to the section on other carcinomas, I've looked for information and since there are only about 100 known cases each of both squamous cell carcinoma of the endometrium and transitional cell carcinoma, it's hard to find anything meeting MEDRS. I've found a couple promising papers but they're quite dense. More to come on this later - I've been overloaded with molecular path and evo/devo papers this week and need a day to unscramble my poor brain.
Okay. I went diving in PubMed and mined the only two relevant MEDRS-ish sources for PSCCE. I did use an article that had both case reports and a review of the literature because my options were very limited. There aren't any reviews of the past 5 years covering transitional cell carcinoma of the endometrium (it's that rare) so I'm going to go slightly outside of that in order to get something on TCCE. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks very good. There's also the few short paragraphs in #Research. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Thank you so much for all your comments! I think I've satisfied most of your concerns from this section. I'll keep plugging away this weekend. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • being highly suspicious for endometrial cancer. - Was the patient suspicious, or... what's meant here?
Done - Clarified that the finding is what's suspicious.
  • both an endometrial biopsy and a transvaginal ultrasound - so used in conjunction?
Yup. Not sure how to make this clearer beyond saying "used in conjunction".
I mean, they evolve from hyperplasia... ;) Done
  • have a good outcome - prognosis? I can't imagine a cancer left unchecked having a "good" outcome. Prognosis, at least, implies treatment.
  • The CTNNB1 (beta-catenin) mutation is most commonly mutated in the squamous subtype of endometrioid adenocarcinoma. - mutation - mutated; can we avoid the repetition
Yeah, we can. Done
  • 30% of endometrial serous carcinomas - more numerals
Not sure what the issue is here?
  • Sentences starting with numerals (or, at least, were when I reviewed)
Ah. Done.
  • pelvic and para-aortal nodes - I don't think these are linked yet
  • in the lung - or in the lungs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • is performed for tumors of histologic grade II or above. Lymphadenectomy is routinely performed for all stages of endometrial cancer in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, the lymph nodes are typically only removed with disease of stage II or greater. - redundant
I'm not sure how this is redundant, since histologic grade and disease stage are different. Am I missing something?
  • What's that? Humans only use 10% of their brain? Stet. I must have misread this sentence, or not comprehended the difference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 90% of women are treated with some form of surgery - another sentence beginning with numerals. Also, this would work much better closing the paragraph
  • In stage IV disease, where there are distant metastases, surgery can be used as part of palliative therapy. - could this be merged somewhere?
  • happen about 5-10% of the time - "happen in about 5-10% of cases" might be more professional.
  • dilation and curettage (D&C) - you've already linked this and given the abbreviation. You should just use D&C, or get rid of the abbreviation altogether and use the full name
  • Mutations in mismatch repair genes can lead to resistance against platins, meaning that chemotherapy with platins is ineffective in people with these mutations. - if this is related to Lymph disease or another condition which exacerbates the disease, we might want to be more explicit
  • shows tumor invading the cervix, - This feels rough to me, though if it's the proper terminology I'll push that concern aside
Invasion is the technical term, yeah. Not sure how to write that without compromising the scientific meaning.
  • 25% of metastatic endometrioid - again
  • Also, endometrial stromal sarcomas can be treated with hormonal agents, including tamoxifen, 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, letrozole, megestrol acetate, and medroxyprogesterone - and how well do these work?
Jury's out. I could go into more extensive detail about various studies and such if you think that wouldn't be overkill.
  • Would be nice to have at least that much, maybe with one or two discussions of studies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
K, I've expanded the bits on hormonal treatment of ESS, added some to Research about hormonal agents, and expanded the ESS section itself. Better? (It's super rare so hard to find MEDRS on it.) Keilana|Parlez ici 00:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Research is ongoing in this area. - as of?
Same as the other ones, mid-2010s. Done
  • You have a hidden note about the table being US figures... why isn't this noted in the article?
It should be. Done
  • Older age indicates a worse prognosis. - "older age" is a bit rough, I think. "There is a negative relationship between patients' ages and survival rates." would be more professional, or something similar.
@Crisco 1492: I'm not sure if that's clear enough for the lay reader, perhaps something like "Survival rates are lower for older women"? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Even better wording, I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Higher-staged cancers are more likely to recur — those that have invaded the myometrium or cervix, or that have metastasized into the lymphatic system, are particularly likely to recur. - Could we avoid "likely to recur" being in the article twice? Perhaps " Higher-staged cancers are more likely to recur, as are those that have invaded the myometrium or cervix, or that have metastasized into the lymphatic system."
  • If a cancer treated with radiation occurs, - occurs -> recurs?
Uh, yeah. Done.
  • Worldwide, approximately 320,000 women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer each year and 76,000 die, making it the sixth most common cancer in women. - date of statistics?
2014. Done
  • Too much repetition of "developed countries" in #Epidemiology
Not sure how to reduce that without making stats unclear. Any ideas?
  • Is "first-world" still politic, or are we supposed to avoid it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally prefer to avoid it. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then I don't have any ideas. "The West" is just as problematic, if not more so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, and North America have the highest rates of endometrial cancer, comprising 48% of diagnoses in 2012, whereas Africa and West Asia have the lowest rates. Asia saw 41% of the world's endometrial cancer diagnoses in 2012. - That's three continents making up 48%, compared to one continent making up 41%. How do three individually have higher rates than Asia alone? Concerning...
Not quite sure what the worry is here, but it might be helped by "together comprising 48% of diagnoses ....". Obviously Asia has by far the largest pop. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's the mix of rates (relative to population) with absolute numbers (the percent of diagnoses) that is confusing me. Is there perhaps a more elegant way to phrase this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So I agree, it's the mix of rates and absolute numbers and the confounding factor of West Asia vs all of Asia. I think it's clarified better now...? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Much better. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • most frequently during perimenopause and menopause, between the ages of 50 and 65; overall, 75% of endometrial cancer occurs after menopause. - Feels contradictory: if 75% of cancer cases occur after menopause, then during menopause it wouldn't be "most frequent"
Perimenopause and menopause together are most frequent - perimenopause includes after menopause. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but perimenopause (according to the menopause article) also includes "before menopause"... which, to me, at least, means pretty much any woman from age 35 to 65 (or however menopausal age is defined) is most frequently affected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately the source isn't more specific. Should I just remove the bit about perimenopause/menopause? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I defer to Doc James or another person better versed in medicine than I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 5% of cases occur in women younger than 40 and 10-15% occur in women under 50 years of age. - another numeral
  • is still underway. - as of?
Probably, for most/all of these: "now, 5 years ago and in 10 years time". It's a very slow process, with research before and after anything affects clinical practice. It's probably best to start the section with some blanket statement including a vague date "in the middle 2010s" maybe. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "As of the mid-2010s" would work nicely too. Much better than a whole bunch of "as ofs", and it would satisfy WP:ASOF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Research is ongoing on the use of metformin, a diabetes medication, - again, as of?
  • in the first place, - feels non-formal. Perhaps "Long-term use of metformin has not been shown to have a preventative effect against developing cancer (?or, "the development of cancer"?), but may improve overall survival."
  • Temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, is under investigation as a potential treatment. - again
per above, included in the "mid-2010s" umbrella. Done
  • <-- hormonal stuff --> - I know this is hidden text, but... "stuff"?
uh. "hormonal research". Done.
  • Hormone therapy that is effective in breast cancer - in treating, perhaps?
Yeah, done
  • The last three paragraphs are much too short
As above.
  • I'm getting error messages from some of your cites: "Endometrial Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)" and "General Information About Endometrial Cancer"" have date errors, and Lee JM and Banerjee S, use deprecated parameters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not getting error messages from either of those sources. Maybe someone came by and fixed it? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ooooh, I see what you mean. Fixed now. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Once the prose changes settle down, I'd recommend checking the order of your footnotes. I've seen some like [23][15] etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't find either of them but the website is really difficult to navigate. I've removed them for now, until I can dig up the originals.Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • File:Endometrial adenocarcinoma (1).jpg - Fine
    • File:EndometrialStromalSarcoma.JPG - I'm not seeing evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Web resolution and quality / type of other nominations suggest (to me) that s/he may not be. Since the side-by-side presentation looks a little rough (and the image sizes are uneven) losing it is not too much of a blow.
K, removed. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • File:Figure 28 02 06.JPG - Source page is licensed CC-BY, but I don't see the image there. Could we have a direct link?
Found it. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_CRUK. There is an OTRS ticket wending its way here, which will be added to all these via the template, I hope in a few days. As WiR, I can confirm the release has been approved by CRUK, who supplied Fae with the svg files. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Great. Thanks, that's more than enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that what MediaViewer is for? ;) In all seriousness, I'm not sure there's a better option. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Cutting down to just the diagrams would be nice. Or we could do something fancy like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna steal your fancy gallery thingy and stick the gross path somewhere else. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent. *tents fingers* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Assuming this is comprehensive and accurate. I mean, damn it, I'm a literary critic, not a doctor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review and your support! The article is much better for it. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, building on what Crisco's already said

  • Why so many citations in the lead?
  • "Abnormal menstrual periods or extremely long, heavy, or frequent episodes of bleeding in women before menopause may also be a sign of endometrial cancer." - source?
    • Sourced.
  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
    • Think it's better now.
  • National Cancer Institute is a publisher, not a publication - generally you're being inconsistent in how you treat it, compare for example FNs 1, 2, 6 and 9
    • Done
  • MM/DD/YYYY is not an allowed date format
    • Seppi is awesome and took care of this.
  • Be consistent in how you format author lists - sometimes you've got "lastname, initial;", other times "lastname initial,"
  • Where you have page ranges for chapters, it would be helpful to include them
A lot of these are e-books and don't have page ranges. Is that okay?
Yes, just good to have when you have them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you're abbreviating journal titles, other times not - be consistent
  • FN19 has doubled quote marks
Seppi got this one too.
  • FN43: suggest splitting out publisher from title. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the citation number has changed, could you point me to this again?
I appear to have fixed the MM/DD/YYYY and FN19 issues you noted while performing the MOS-related edits in my review. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks much for the review! I think I've taken care of or responded to everything. Thanks also Seppi for your fixes. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
43 is now 47; a couple of other replies above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, took care of 47. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by Seppi333[edit]

I went ahead and fixed all the issues with MOS:CAPTION, MOS:IMAGELOCATION, MOS:NDASH, MOS:MDASH, MOS:DATEFORMAT, MOS:NBSP, MOS:NUMERAL, MOS:%, and MOS:FRAC that I could find - diff of those changes.

Thank you!! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll review the prose later this week, though I did notice that the capitalization of the word "type" isn't consistent in the article. In some cases, "Type I" and "Type II" is used and elsewhere it's written as "type I" and "type II".
  • Also, I noticed none of the images had WP:ALT text. Ideally, a featured article should have this for every image. I already added alt text to the images that I moved into templates, but the remaining images are missing it. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

History and culture[edit]

Currently this article lacks any section about the cultural impact of this condition. For such a common disease it seems that it hardly exists in popular discussion. I do not expect much, but I would like either a history or society and culture section here, even if that is just a single sentence where someone says "No sources discuss the history of recognizing this condition.(citation needed)"

Here are the oldest sources I could find on PubMed. I cannot read them. Maybe one of them says something about the early history of treatment or recognition of the disease.

  • DIDDLE, AW (1949 Jan). "Endometrial carcinoma.". Western journal of surgery, obstetrics, and gynecology 57 (1): 20–2. PMID 18107274. 
  • ARNESON, AN (1950 Aug). "The use of radium in the treatment of endometrial cancer.". The Journal of the Kansas Medical Society 51 (8 Suppl.): 37A–38A. PMID 14774594. 
  • SPEERT, H (1949 Mar). "Carcinoma of the endometrium in young women.". Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics 88 (3): 332–6. PMID 18111780.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not My Life[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a 2011 American independent documentary film about human trafficking and contemporary slavery. The article received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and was later promoted to good article status. The people who made the documentary have been very generous with sharing production images, and I believe the article is now feature-worthy. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from EddieHugh[edit]

As a first step, please reduce the quantity of wikilinks. I count 18 in the first para that could be removed without any likely reader suffering. EddieHugh (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation, EddieHugh! I have gone through the article and removed 57 wikilinks that might be considered superfluous. I assume that 13 of the 18 links you count in the first paragraph are the country names. Please correct me if I am wrong. These links are not to the articles about the countries themselves, but rather to the articles about human trafficking in those respective countries, which I think directly relevant to the subject of this article. Do you disagree? I would prefer retain these specific links, but I am willing to remove them if consensus is in favour of it. Please let me know if there are any remaining wikilinks you think unnecessary, or if you have any further recommendations with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a start, but there are still lots that just don't need to be there, as they're well known (e.g., New York City, New York, Americans, United States, child abuse, brothel) or self-explanatory even on the off chance that a reader doesn't know the term (e.g., investigative journalist, international economics, international security, international health, addicted to sex, sex slaves). See what other people suggest; to me, a sea of blue in the lead, especially of links to things that I (think that I) know about, is off-putting. EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have gone through the article again and removed more wikilinks, including all of the ones you mention except the one to Sexual slavery, because sexual slavery is one of the main topics discussed in the film. Again, I am certainly willing to remove this and other links if there is consensus to do so. Please let me know if you feel that the wikilinks should be diminished further. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from 1ST7[edit]

Support. The article appears to meet the FA criteria—it is well-written, with no typos or grammar errors as far as I can tell; everything is well-sourced, with no dead links; and the subject is covered comprehensively and in a neutral manner. Regarding the wikilinks, I would recommend not linking to any article more than once. "Death by burning" is linked twice in the first paragraph of the interviews section, and a number of the terms, individuals, and organizations are linked two or three times throughout the article. However, after reading over Wikipedia:FA criteria, I don't believe that the linking disqualifies the article from meeting FA standards. --1ST7 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support, 1ST7! I have removed the duplicated link to Death by burning. Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool, I don't see any other duplicated links, unless you count links in image captions, which I believe are supposed to be included even if they also appear in the body text, but please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. I greatly appreciate your encouragement with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome! Most of the links I was referring to are in the lead, and then linked again later in the article, and sometimes in the image captions as well. I was under the impression that terms that are linked in the lead don't need to be linked again later in the article, but, while reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, I found this sentence: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So you are correct about duplicates being fine when they are in the lead or the image captions. Best of luck with the rest of the FA review! --1ST7 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian[edit]

After thoroughly reviewing the article I'm comfortable now supporting it for FA status. Well done David on another fine piece of work! Cliftonian (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

  • Would suggest either expanding the lead image caption or removing it entirely - just "poster" doesn't add much
  • File:Antoniomariacosta-200.jpg: source link returns "authorization required" error. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have removed the lead image caption and replaced the image of Antonio Maria Costa with one from the Commons. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues with the images, or if you have any other recommendations regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Iztwoz[edit]

    • In Live footage - talibes are referred to as children and photo shows boys and girls but entry defines them as boys. Iztwoz (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the discussion, Iztwoz! Why do you believe that there are girls in the photo? As far as I can tell, all six children in the photo are boys, as is indicated both in the article and in the image description at the Commons. Neelix (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It was very late when I looked at article! I have since changed children to schoolboys. Iztwoz (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that; it makes the situation clearer. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article's quality, Iztwoz? Neelix (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The article looks fine, to me - though I would support Blue Rasberry's sentiments. Iztwoz (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Comments – This is a fine article, and I feel mean for raising petty drafting points, but I think I must comment on two matters. First, there is some doubt whether the text uses English or American spelling. One might expect the latter, given that the article is about an American film, but we have Anglicisms such as "labour", "Programmes" (though possibly in a job title this is prescribed) and "organisation". If, per contra, English spelling is intended, we have "installment", "center", "traveled" and "counseling", that need changing. In either case, "readded" could do with a hyphen to help the reader, and the phrase "each and every one of us", is usual, rather than "each and everyone of us". (That's in a quote, but it's a report of a speech, and I think you are liberty to render it in orthodox form.) "Denialism" was new to me (and the Oxford English Dictionary hasn't heard of it) but I see Wikipedia has an article on it, and so I suppose it must be allowed.

Secondly, it is a matter of interpretation of WP:OVERLINK, but to my eye there are too many links to ordinary words and phrases that need not be linked, such as "documentary film", "slavery", "social justice", "incest", "burned to death", "buried alive", "prostituted", "trafficking in drugs", "feature film", "film crew", "and sexually assaulted". – Tim riley talk 08:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your review of the article, Tim. I am Canadian and, because Canadian English matches British English in some ways and American English in others, that is probably why you are seeing elements of both in the article. I agree that an article about an American film should employ American English, so I have made the alterations accordingly. Please let me know if you spot any more non-American spellings. I have also gone through the article and removed all the wikilinks you mentioned, as well as a few others. The hyphen is now in "re-added" and the space is between "every one". Neelix (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Good heavens! So sorry for my absent-minded, or perhaps beleaguered, English assumption that all non-BrEng variants are American. Remiss, and rather presumptuous, of me, and as far as I can see you are now wholly in AmEng. Very happy to support this moving and well-researched article. Meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinion from expert[edit]

This article draws so heavily from a single paper that I think it would be an omission to promote this article without asking the author of that paper if she would like to review and comment upon this article. How would anyone feel about emailing Nancy Keefe Rhodes and seeing if she has anything to say? Has anyone already done this? Would it be helpful if I sent her an email asking for her to comment? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale[edit]

Nominator(s): decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale has been my favorite actress/singer for years. I've been working on her main article since 2009 and I've made over 1,300 edits on it since them. I've put a lot of hard work on it after seeing it fail the FA nomination three times - all of them mainly because of the prose. I took some time to rewrite the article and there was major changes since last time it was nominated. I requested for a peer review two months ago (SNUGGUMS, thanks a lot again!) and a lot of improvements were made. After it was achieved, I requested Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors for a FA-quality copyedit and JudyCS was nice enough to help me out. Now I believe the article is finally ready to receive that gold star and therefore here I am for the fourth (and hopefully last) time. decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After a detailed review and extensive work/improvements from you, Decodet, I now officially support. Ms. Tisdale would be very proud of your work, kudos for your efforts :D ! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Xx (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and, IMHO, this might be the best article I've written. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Can't say I've listened much to this band, though I've definitely seen this (rather distinctive) cover around; I guess I assumed they were a Strokes/Arctic Monkeys/Spoon-style garage rock outfit. And it's seriously unfortunate that this nomination's most of the way down the newer Nominations category with no feedback, so I'll be giving my review in short order. Tezero (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Change "alternative" to "alternative rock" to disambiguate from alternative R&B.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is dream pop listed in the infobox but not the lead? (I actually think it sounds more space rock than dream pop, personally, but that isn't stated.)
"Dream pop" is verified by one source mentioned in #Music and lyrics; IMO, it would be undue weight if we include Sarah Boden's classification of the music as dream pop in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Then can "electronic rock" or something go in the infobox, too? It just seems kind of asymmetric, that's all. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
How so, "asymmetric"? I don't think that particular genre could be verified anyway. Do you mean for appearance sake? Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean it looks odd for the genres listed in the lead to overlap so little with those in the infobox, that's all. Tezero (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The band's Jamie Smith" - the frontman? What instrument does he play?
He produces beats for the band and plays the sampler, drums, laptop, MPC, etc. He's not a traditional/conventional band member, so I don't think there's a proper term for his role. His role as producer did not become established until they started recording this album. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "and received widespread acclaim from critics" - Can you get a little more into detail about what critics did and didn't like?
IMO, it'd seem obvious to readers--the music and lyrics that are discussed in the lead's second paragraph--partly because "widespread acclaim" is a fairly strong phrase to suggest there were very few things they didn't like, and at least nothing they disliked collectively. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a requirement by any stretch, but British English tradition is to omit the Oxford comma.
  • "The band also covered" - why "also"? You haven't introduced what else they played.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comparisons and references to R&B are all over the place; I'd think it ideal to list "R&B" or some derivative in the genre field of the infobox.
#Music and lyrics only mentions "R&B" as an influence or element which the music draws on. The closest derivative I could think of is PBR&B, but there aren't any source for that and this album. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The songs on xx are built around a framework of basslines and beats, and incorporate austere guitar riffs for melody, rhythm, and texture" - should be "and they incorporate"
Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Will be back with more. Tezero (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "bookmakers and critics considered the xx as favorites" - I can tell what this means, but the wording is a little unclear as to whether they just liked the xx or predicted they would be award-winners. Maybe add "possible" before "favorites" or swap "considered" for "predicted"?
This kind of wording has been used in other print sources ([7]), and the context is established by the preceding sentence and the bit that follows, "...and predicted they would win over..." Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also might want to link "bookmaker". I had to look it up.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The first two paragraphs of Reception are very unbalanced - is there any way they could be evened out a bit?
Well that's sort of the point, to be neutral in form. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). To be honest, if I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal, but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. Is there a way to organize them any way other than positive vs. negative? It's okay if the answer's genuinely no, but I'm just not big on the layout as of now. Tezero (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ook, but I don't think there is honestly. IMO, this is the best way for the content in that section. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "said was "quit a feat"" - mistake in original? If not, use [sic].
  • "English band Florence and the Machine" - "fellow English band", maybe? (I actually thought they were American.)
Corrected "quite" misspelling and added "fellow". Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Tezero (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; this is a well-written article that, assuming an appropriate source and image review are provided, I have no problems with making it to FA status. Tezero (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp and  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard.  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Leigh_Leigh_headstone.png: Australia typically doesn't have freedom of panorama for engravings and photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Nikkimaria. I must admit I didn't even know what freedom of panorama was until I read your comment, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject. Section 65 of the 1968 copyright act [8] states: "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work..." I can assure you this headstone is in a place that is open to the public. Granted section 65 defines 'work' as "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship", which i'm not 100% a headstone falls into, but I don't see the problem here. I don't think anyone holds the copyright to the headstone, nor do I see how anyone could. The only reason I knew where to find the headstone to take a photo of it is because there is already a photo of it in the Australian Cemeteries Index [9]. Clearly people take photographs of Austrlaian headstones and put them on the internet, apparently without any controversy. Can you explain in a bit more detail what the issue is here? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Freikorp, that the work is in a place open to the public is not in dispute. However, unlike say a public sculpture or a building, this particular work is primarily two dimensional - its features are engravings and a photo. The Australian copyright act specifies that their freedom of panorama law does not extend to either engravings or photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, is the new FUR image i've uploaded to replace the headstone acceptable? Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    So this is an image that was used in the media but is not by the media - do we know what the original source of the image was? Also, the "unique historical image" tag is very hard to justify - I would recommend instead using {{non-free biog-pic}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've changed the tag accordingly; thanks. Leigh was a Newcastle High School student. It is the last annual school portrait photo that was taken before she died; obviously it was taken by whoever the school hired for their photos (does that mean the school holds the copyright?). As to which newspaper it appeared in first, and how the media got hold of a copy, I am not sure. I had to search through microform for The Newcastle Herald to write this article as online Australian newspaper archives don't usually go back to the 1980's. The Newcastle Herald repeatedly published a different photo of Leigh, but as it is on microform, the quality is insufficient for wikipedia. Does not knowing who published the image first or how they got a hold of it present a problem? Freikorp (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    To a degree. All fair-use tags require that you include information on the copyright holder and the image's current status. Based on your description, the photo likely would have been a work for hire, meaning it may be owned by the school, the photography company, or possibly even the parents, depending on the practices of that company. However, we can't know for sure. I suggest you include an explanation on the image description page that the copyright holder is unknown and what steps you have taken to try to determine its status. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I just found something new. This reliable source [10] publishes the photo, and specifies the source as "Supplied". Does that mean anything to you? I was thinking that might mean it was willingly given to the newspaper by the copyright holder. Also while we're on the subject, is there any way I could justify FUR for the image of Matthew Webster (Leigh's murderer) as seen in said article? Or would that be pushing it? I've always thought the article would benefit from a photo of him. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I would guess supplied by the family, who would most likely not be the copyright holder; even if it were supplied by the copyright holder, that note would not be sufficient to make it free for our purposes. As to the other image, that's less likely to be justifiable: assuming that Webster is still alive he is now out of jail and theoretically available for the creation of a free image, so the biog-pic tag would not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Didier Drogba[edit]

Nominator(s): Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about an Ivorian professional footballer. He is best known for his career at English Premier League club Chelsea where he won three league titles, four domestic titles and the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12. He is the club's fourth highest scorer of all time, and his country's all-time top goalscorer.

The article's initial FAC nomination was not promoted because there were several issues with how it was written and referencing, and since then it has been through a peer review. As of this revision all the issues that surfaced during the previous FAC and the peer review have been addressed, and I believe the article is now ready to be featured.

Death on the Rock[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at FAC with this article; the first took longer than I expected and I ended up being unavailable, first while I underwent surgery and then I became heavily involved in organising Wikimania. Wikimania's over now and thankfully I'm fully recovered, so I can pick this up again. Having had a look at the previous FAC, I think I've addressed all the outstanding concerns as best I can, but I would welcome more eyes and any further comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I reviewed this article on its first run, and the only point I raised which was not addressed was the lead. THis has now been addressed, IMO, and I consider it now meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per last time. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment. I reviewed this last time, and all my concerns have been addressed except for the lead. My concern was that the first paragraph of the lead acted as a summary for the lead itself, giving information that appeared again at the end of the lead. It has been much improved, but I think the last two sentences of the first paragraph are unnecessary. I'd suggest either cutting them altogether, or possibly moving an abbreviated version of them to the last paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for looking again. We shouldn't make people read to the end of three paragraphs to find out the end result, and that it was the first individual documentary to be subject to an independent inquiry is a significant part of its notability, so I think those two sentences are necessary and useful. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not how I would do it, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and not an issue with the FA criteria, so I've switched to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Caption that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed.
  • File:Geoffrey_Howe.jpg: according to original source this definitely isn't from 1974, and that licensing tag is questionable. The image from which it is derived has a different tag that makes a bit more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • According to the file it's cropped from, the copyright holder released it into the public domain via Flickr. Where 1974 came from, I haven't the faintest. I've corrected the date on the file. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever The facts that "Death on the Rock" was accused of sensationalism and that Thames commissioned an independent inquiry are mentioned twice in the lead.

First mention in the lead:

It was condemned by the British government, while tabloid newspapers denounced it as sensationalist. "Death on the Rock" subsequently became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.

Remove the first mention.
Second mention in the lead:

The morning after the broadcast, several tabloid newspapers attacked the documentary, accusing it of sensationalism and "trial by television". [...] As a result of the retraction, Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary.

Replace "Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary" with ""Death on the Rock" became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by Thames, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.", because "commissioned", "inquiry", and "into the making of" are said twice in the second mention as blockquoted. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think it would be an improvement. I've explained the 'duplication' above, and your suggested alteration would actually make the prose worse and change the meaning of the sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. You don't have to do that suggestion. I Support this FAC. I'm happy! =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 01:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed, copyedited (a little) and supported at MilHist ACR so back for another look...

  • The lead has changed a bit since ACR, so I re-read it from top to bottom and made what I hope are some improvements -- happy to discuss of course.
  • Still in the lead, the words "many believed" are a bit weaselly. While I accept that they're supported by the conclusion in the main body, I wonder if something like "several involved parties speculated" (or "believed") might not be better.
  • Other than that I've just reviewed the diffs in the main body since ACR, and see no issues with them, and the structure, level of detail, and density of referencing seems appropriate. As I said in ACR, I find the terminology for "specific" and "general" references (not to mentioned their order being the reverse of the norm) a bit off-putting, but to each their own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with the tweaks you made, so thanks for that, and I can see your point on "many people", so I've gone with you suggestion. Thanks for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A pleasure, Harry -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - Exhaustive and definitive, yet not overwhelming or tiresome to go through. Everything checks out. An overall interesting read with a sound structure on a rather "touchy" subject. Great job. All the best, ProKro (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Fez (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): czar  04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On the occasion of Polytron's recent security breach, I thought it apt to seek a bronze star for Fez. It's an underdog of a game that received outstanding reviews but was buried under a mountain of coverage pertaining to its outspoken creator, Phil Fish. The game could have been famous only its relation to Fish, but turned out to have incredible merit on its own. I started to edit this article early in the year and it quickly became a complete rewrite with many interwoven substories about the precariousness of indie game development, the growing pains of online games journalism, the rekindling of interest in the 8-bit "retrogaming" aesthetic, and how esoteric game mechanics could meet the standard Nintendo-inspired influences yet still feel fresh... and receive widespread acclaim. The sourcing is comprehensive, and has led to two separate articles, now GAs: Phil Fish and Development of Fez. It also led to a spate of free use images and audio releases, including the Fez cover art, which became a featured picture. Considering the depth and EV of the gameplay video and other assets, I see more featured pictures in the future.

But this article was one of my bigger labors of love this year, and it led to my interest in asking devs to relicense their assets for the Commons, which has been a successful effort by most standards, as well as my interest in indie game GAs, of which I've had more than several since. The devs were really excited to see the article make the front page of Wikipedia. As relayed back to me, Fish said on Facebook, "somebody took it upon themselves to write a surprisingly long and accurate wikipedia entry for FEZ. im kind of amazed" I had other fun quotes (and Twitter retweets and favs), but I don't know where I put them and I'm leaving town in a few hours. It's been a good run, and the article has touched many people, so I'd like to take it full circle now. The prose (of a somewhat controversial subject) has seen few non-vandal edits since the rewrite, which leads me to believe that it stands to scrutiny and is sufficiently clear and concise. I believe Fez meets the featured article criteria, and I look forward to your feedback. czar  04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

Support as per comments below.

  • Overall this is a pretty freaking great article, if I may say so myself. All the references are in good shape, with the right date formats, authors, etc, the prose flows well, and all images have adequate FURs. Believe it or not, I haven't found a single issue with the page. Good job on it, Czar! URDNEXT (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (Please do not use 3rd level headers or higher, they corrupt the summary list of FA nominations. See FA-guidelines.) GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. Sorry for any incoveniences, GermanJoe! Not happening again. URDNEXT (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Looks great; I just have a few complaints:

  • ""Continuum" is a synthesized rendition of Frédéric Chopin's Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4." - Can this be expanded or otherwise merged into something else? I really, really don't like one-line paragraphs.
  • "Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." - Can you expand a little? Despite all the hype, I actually can't think of any of Fish's actual outbursts other than the cancellation of Fez 2 and saying that the Japanese game industry sucks (which I kind of agree with, when taken in context).
  • Per WP:EASTER, I don't recommend simply linking "who says, "Hey! Listen!"" - to Navi.
  • "Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher, Microsoft Games Studios, for botching its release,[38] with a lack of promotion and publicity.[38]" - Why is #38 cited twice?

Tezero (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One-line ¶ expanded. I purposely did not go into detail on the specifics of Fish's tabloid-y media coverage because I felt it was non-neutral and non-encyclopedic info. The sources that say he was outspoken go into enough detail, though if you think something specific should be added (perhaps that he made public comments about the industry or something like that) let me know. "Hey! Listen!" should be a redirect to Navi as it's something referenced throughout her article. I'd explain its reference to Navi in the prose, but since the source does not, I expect the logical leap to be made without it appearing as an Easter egg link. #38 looks like a floating citation error—now fixed. czar  08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think info on Fish's acerbic nature would be plenty encyclopedic, as it lets the reader draw their own conclusions about him instead of saying "he's a jerk; just trust us", but if you feel strongly about it I won't belabor the matter. And I guess that's a good enough Navi justification, so I can support this in peace. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Media check (GermanJoe) - all OK[edit]

  • All images have sufficient source and author information and are CC - OK.
  • Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.
  • OTRS-images and soundfile have been checked by a member of the OTRS-team - OK.
  • (added a few more personality rights info tags to play it safe). GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero[edit]

  • All sources look reliable; a few like seem kinda iffy but they're not used for anything substantive but their areas of expertise so I'm fine. Bandcamp's a social media site but it's being used here only as a first-party source so that's also okay.
  • Spotchecks:
  • 4: good; I can see that not much more was elaborated on about Fish's caustic remarks
  • 3: good
  • 12: good; nice job archiving the fickle
  • 7: good
  • 27: good, though you might want to specify that it was the "You got 2D in my 3D, or maybe 3D in my 2D" award. Leaving it simply as an "award" implies it was a GotY or something.
  • 13: good

As a result, I can continue to support this nomination. Source review passes. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by[edit]

  • People with visual impairment would appreciate alternative text: a short description of the screenshots of gameplay, such as "Forest stage" and "Gomez standing over a waterfall"; who is Phil Fish and who is Renaud Bédard. (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a good idea. Remember, multiple thumbnails aren't against the rules. Tezero (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@, Tezero, done czar  18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMA should be followed: "on April 13, 2012,". (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In reception, removing non-notable authors improves the focus (length criterion); they appear in the references already.
  • When covering technical faults, I would expect the actual faults. "Game Informer as minor" is less useful than "frame rate stalls during autosaves". describes some serious bugs: "bombs that refuse to budge", "Entire areas of the world map disappear". These pretty serious bugs could be mentioned in the development section.
  • This would be a good time to decide whether should be italicized; there were no objections.[11]
  • It looks like some readers are interested in revenue. Perhaps the "At $10 per download" in its first day could be added. (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed your concerns, if you can take a look. On the other points: the reception reviewers are listed because the predominant WPVG preference is to list the opinions as the author's and not the magazine's. Not saying I agree, but I've seen FACs asked to conform to this standard. With technical faults, the jargon of screentearing and associated specifics would be needless information for the average reader and I consider it outside the article's scope. I think it would be original research to add anything about the game's revenues if nothing has been published in reliable sources. And I don't agree with that part of WP:COMMA, but that's another thing altogether. But everything else should be done czar  00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Fez designer and Polytron founder Phil Fish received celebrity for his outspoken public persona - huh? "received celebrity" sounds really weird. I'd say "gained celebrity" maybe, or "became a celebrity" - let me think on other alternatives...or offer a suggestion yourself
treasure chests animations that liken to that of... - clumsy..two issues...--> "treasure chests animations that resemble/are reminiscent of those of ..."
This second half of the game is less easygoing... --> "more challenging" sounds more natural here.
The game's puzzles are based around discovery. - redundant - let following sentences speak for themselves. Also true of most games. Hence I'd remove it.
Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher - dequote - "berated"? "admonished"? lots of alternatives without resorting to quotes

Do we have any information on how much money Fish and others have made out of it so far? And how much it cost to make. Any numbers at all?

Otherwise a nice read and nearly over teh finish line. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber, thanks for the review. I think I got everything—what do you think? As for the "fiercely criticized"—I preferred the quote there because the sentiment is negative. I felt the quote makes it more generous. Anyway, changed everything you mentioned. There is no RS on how much money the game made or cost (other than its sales figures, which are in the article). I did ask on Quora a while ago, but that isn't reliable, and supposedly an old tweet estimated the cost of production at half a million dollars, but the tweets are deleted and the only source is unreliable. czar  18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
All cool - support now - could add an adverb to convey fierceness...."hotly rebuked?" ....but all in order... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Ready to close? czar  21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Typically they wait a bit to see if anyone else has input. Shouldn't be longer than a couple days. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC Coordinator's Comments

  • I am not satisfied that a consensus has been reached that the FA criteria have been met. The source review seems superficial. For example, what makes this [12] a reliable source? And this [13]? From a superficial reading I see that the prose remains below FA standard (see for example "Fez's development cycle developed a reputation for its protracted five-year length and public exposure." Where we have "development" and "developed" with just one word separating them). I can't speak for my colleague Ian, but the prospects for the promotion of this candidate are not looking good at this stage, and I will not be promoting this until I have seen more thorough reviews that address all the FA criteria. At the moment I would be embarrassed to see this on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • GrahamColm, I myself am not well versed in their editorial policies, but both sites are classed as reliable by the Video games project per WP:VG/RS. Tezero (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
"Embarrassed" is, I hope, an exaggeration. As for the sources, they should all meet WP:VG/RS vetted standards. If you have any more specific concerns about the prose or anything else, I'm happy to address it. Prose quality hasn't been an issue for me before. czar  02:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with GrahamColm about the prose quality. I noticed it myself after looking at the article soon after the nom: rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness. Similar problems dogged Mischief Makers a few months ago. Initially, I decided to hold off on my review until other editors had made significant comments on the prose (which did not happen), and then, after the FU3 controversy, I delayed further to avoid potential awkwardness. My Wikipedia time currently is spent scanning materials for Red Phoenix and his Dreamcast project, so I don't have time to prose review such a long article. But I can say that it needs a thorough working-over by at least one outside copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, I'm very surprised to hear you say that. I gave it another read and rephrased any part I felt you may have been referencing, but I felt that even those changes were minor. I'd be interested to see a few examples of where y'all think the prose is falling short of 1a professional brilliance. czar  00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the lead alone:
  • "developed by indie developer" — "Developed" and "developer" twice in four words.
  • "It is a 2D game set in a 3D world: the two-dimensional player-character receives a fez that tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension." — "2D" and "3D" inexplicably introduced before "two-dimensional" and "three-dimensional", plus "tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension" is vague and in-universey.
  • "are built around the core mechanic" — If they're "built around" it, then we already know that the mechanic is important, so "core" is redundant.
  • "rotating between four 2D views of a 3D space—as four sides around a cube—where the environment realigns between views to create new paths." — Even as someone who has seen the game in action, I find this description hard to follow. What could "four 2D views of a 3D space" mean? The hyphenated section doesn't make it clearer. And "the environment realigns between views to create new paths" is extremely vague. What does "between views" mean? What is "the environment" in this case? What does it mean for the environment to "realign"—was it ever not aligned? What does the phrase "new paths" mean, and why are these paths important?
Like I said, I don't have time to prose review an article of this length—particularly when the prose issues appear to be more than superficial. It needs at least one outside copyeditor (possibly two) to give it a spitshine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I know you don't have the time for a full review, but how would you put those four instances, at least? If you played the game, I think you'd appreciate how the "core mechanic" is known for being notoriously difficult to explain in prose, nevertheless in a single sentence. The other parts seem more like personal preference than "rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness" to me. czar  05:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been around 77% done with the game for a while (I got stuck and just didn't feel like walkthrough-ing it - Thomas Was Alone was my real gem from that Humble Bundle) and I agree - it's something that pervades nearly every design choice made in the game and yet it's tough to pin down. I'd like to think we could speed-recruit a couple WP:VG copyeditors before this FAC closes, but honestly since no one's gotten back about those questionable Sonic X sources even after I summarized the facts of each one, one can't be too optimistic. Some of these complaints are borderline unactionable, moreover. Tezero (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
They aren't unactionable in the slightest. I'm aware that Fez's gameplay is hard to summarize, but that doesn't mean that 1a can be bypassed. @Czar: I see that you've worked on the sentences I mentioned. While it's an improvement, the gameplay discussion is still confusing—and it shows, again, that the article needs fresh eyes. I'll provide rewrite suggestions (and these are only suggestions) for the final two sentences:
  • "Protagonist Gomez lives on a two-dimensional (2D) plane until he receives a magical fez, which reveals that his world has a third dimension. Controlling Gomez, the player navigates a 2D environment that may be rotated left or right to remove obstacles and solve puzzles."
Take or leave my choices: I only meant to show that these sentences could be phrased in a clearer and more concise way. Grab a copyeditor or two for the rest of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your view of the prose, but your opinion is noted czar  01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
...Screw it, we can still try. I've let WP:VG know. Tezero (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I entered this to support Graham Colm's statement, which you had essentially brushed off. Brush off my feedback as well, if you like—but the nomination gets an oppose from me in its current state. I leave it to the coordinators to decide if the opposition is warranted. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the passages that need copy editing? If only a few, I think I can handle them. URDNEXT (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to give the article an extensive (or similar to that) copyedit. Is it mainly a syntax problem? I see sentences that could be better structured. Jaguar 12:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've given most parts of the article a copyedit, the syntax has generally been improved but in all honesty the prose is not a concern at all? Some things here and there could be phrased better, but it's almost negligible. I know that the FAC process is dreary and off-putting, but this article seems to meet much and if not all the FA criteria. It is 1a) well-written, 1b) comprehensive and 2a) lead is concise and summarises the article. Not sure what else there is to copyedit! Jaguar 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Your edits were very minor. Looks like Czar made some big improvements in certain areas, though. In any case, @Czar: my schedule has recently opened up, so I'll start one of my standard, line-by-line prose reviews later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Caesar Hull[edit]

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here we have the story of another Rhodesian-born World War II flying ace, Caesar Hull, who left the family farm in Swaziland to join the RAF in 1935. After a few years' concentrating on aerobatics, war intervened, compelling Hull to put his talents to other uses. He played an important role in the fighting around Narvik during May 1940, among other things shooting down four German aircraft in an afternoon over the town of Bodø. For this he won the DFC. The RAF's first Gloster Gladiator ace, he was shot down himself the next day and soon thereafter invalided to England. He returned to action in August 1940 as the commander of No. 43 Squadron RAF in the Battle of Britain—one of only three Southern Rhodesian-born members of "The Few". He was killed in action a week later during a dogfight over south London.

This article passed GA about six months ago and I believe it is at least close to the FA criteria. Any and all comments are welcome, and I hope you enjoy the article. Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support – thoroughly researched and cited, well paced and balanced; the article is excellently written: the contrast between Hull's gung-ho shout of joy at the declaration of war and his death at the age of 26 is set out with remorseless clarity. Moreover, I think the nominator's handling of the Memorials section shows a restraint that would be beyond many of us. In terms of the FA criteria, in my opinion the article meets them all on prose. I don't presume to judge the admissibility of images, excellent as the existing ones are. A really fine article. But can we have a happy ending to your next FAC, Cliftonian? – Tim riley talk 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support, Tim. I will try and find a more cheerful subject for next time, I promise. Cliftonian (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Isn't it "invalided", and not "invalidated"? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Argh! So it is. How embarrassing. Thanks! =) Cliftonian (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the "defence of Narvik" you refer to here, I hope that won't be part of the FA summary when the time comes. After all, after capturing Narvik on 9 April, it was the Germans who were fighting on the defensive in the Narvik area. The Allies and Norwegians only captured Narvik on 28 May, and at that point the Allies had already decided to evacuate. Hull and others were in effect fighting to hold back German forces who were advancing from further south in Norway, forces that could otherwise have interfered with the evacuation. The rank and file Allied troops knew nothing about this planned evacuation, indeed nor did the Norwegian government, the latter being kept in the dark because the British did not trust they would keep the evacuation secret. Plus the Allied forces on the ground around Narvik were mostly Norwegian, French and Polish, it was further south, around Bodø (where Hull & Co. were sent), that the troops were Anglo-Norwegian. Different fronts entirely, but closely connected, as the southern (Bodø) front prevented German forces from rescuing the trapped German forces further north (Narvik). The article is fine, I just got a tiny bit worried about the future FA summary. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake in the summary above—I've changed it now to say simply "fighting around Narvik". Thank you for the explanation, it is much clearer to me now. Cliftonian (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thumbs up Manxruler (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This is yet another example of the value of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Going through the PR, GAN or FAC process is not always comfortable, but it don't half polish our drafts up. Kudos to Cliftonian and Manxruler! Tim riley talk 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • all images are PD (age or own work) with complete source and author information. GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Just a few issues to be cleared up:

  • "Hull grew up between Rhodesia, South Africa and Swaziland": I suspect you don't mean "between" geographically, but rather that his early years were divided among these places. If so you should reword accordingly. This issue occurs in the lead and in "Early life".
  • Link dogfight at first mention
  • "Luftwaffe" is sufficiently used and understood in English not to warrant italicisation. Likewise "Stuka" later on.
  • "headed to the aid" → "heading to the aid" (more idiomatic)
  • "which were adjudged to be heroic" is superfluous. The award of the DFC covers this.
  • Question: is Shangani a town? The WP disambiguation does not mention it, only the river (and the patrol).
  • Shangani is also a small settlement, both at the time and today largely dedicated to farming and mining. See here. I've added it to the disambiguation page and have redlinked it in the article—I'll make a short page later. Cliftonian (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Concise and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Brian. Cliftonian (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, subject to a sources check which, if no one does it in the next couple of days or so, I will do. All the above issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for your help Brian. Hope you're well, take care. Cliftonian (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Recusing from coord duties; I have an open FAC of my own right now and besides I can hardly resist another WWII ace article...

  • Copyedited as usual, so pls let me know any issues -- outstanding points:
    • I got what you meant by "because of his ignorance of Afrikaans" in the lead but I think it'd be simpler to just use the wording in the main body, i.e. "because he did not speak Afrikaans". I don't think repeating the phrasing is a prob but if you want to avoid that then I'd just swap 'em.
      • OK, I've gone with using the same wording twice. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Peter Townsend, who joined the squadron with the same level of seniority as Hull" -- bit of a mouthful, "seniority" is an important concept in the military but do we simply mean he was the same rank as Hull?
      • The source (Musgrave) says "Peter Townsend&nsbp;... also joined the squadron, and with the same level of seniority he and Caesar became close friends." The other sources I have seen just mention them joining around the same time and having the same rank. Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "nine possibles" -- the usual term is "probables", what does the source say?
      • Source says: "during seventy individual combats, [No. 263 Sqn] claimed at least twenty-six victories with another nine possible, against limited own losses". Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "The first of these successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." -- A little confused about just which aircraft are referred to, presumably the Ju 52s but you've already said they were "destroyed", which seemed to be the end of the matter. Let me know and perhaps we can come up with slightly different wording.
      • The problem is that we know that of the three Ju 52s two had paratroopers on board and one had supplies, and that we don't know in which order Hull destroyed them. I have tried to reword: " ... destroyed two more Ju 52s. These German aircraft had been heading to the aid of the hard-pressed German forces fighting around Narvik; one of the Ju 52s was loaded with supplies, while the other two were carrying Fallschirmjäger paratroops. One of the latter aircraft successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." Is this better? Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Hull expressed considerable surprise at this sudden rise in station." -- I assume "this rise in station" means "his elevation to squadron commander"; if so I'd suggest the wording I've just used would be clearer. Also is there any reason given for his surprise, since moving from flight commander to squadron commander was a logical progression?
      • It doesn't say exactly. Perhaps because he had only recently returned to duty after being wounded? The wording is : "As if to emphasise his surprise at suddenly becoming CO, he followed the description of himself as "Commanding No 43 Sqn" in the endorsement of Badger's log with four exclamation marks." I've added this little detail to the article. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "On 4 September, Hull led a group of Hurricanes in a decisive aerial victory over a large group of Bf 110s over coastal Sussex." -- I think we need more detail on how this constituted a decisive victory; are there any figures available for victories v. losses, as with the previous engagement? FWIW, I can probably check a source or two myself today or tomorrow...
      • Had a squizz at Stephen Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy, probably the best account I've read of the Battle of Britain, and there's no figures re. 43 Sqn on 4 September there. However he does mention that the German formation that Hull and his boys came up against on 7 September comprised almost 1,000 aircraft (around 350 bombers and 600 fighters), so it might be worth mentioning that -- I can supply full reference/page details if you're interested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • By all means, anything that would improve the article has my support. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) The source (Saunders, p. 45) says:
"As with the 1st [of September], the 3rd was less hectic, allowing No 43 Sqn to catch its breath before another big battle on the 4th, when Caesar Hull led the unit into a large formation of Bf 110s over the Sussex coast just after lunchtime. Flt Lt Dalton-Morgan, freshly out of the sick bay, avenged his wounds by sending a Bf 110 down in flames north of Worthing and chasing another until it force-landed in a field near Shoreham. Sgt Jeffreys also downed a Bf 110 in a field, and Hull and Upton seriously damaged two more Zerstorers. A fourth Bf 110 was chased across the Channel by Belgian Plt Off van den Hove d'Ertsenrijck, who sent it crashing into the sea seven miles south of Brighton, although his Hurricane (L1386) was hit in return, and he had to make an emergency landing at RAF Ford. The Messerschmitts massacred by No 43 Sqn that day were from ZGs 2 and 76, although the multiple claims and losses make it difficult, with any certainty to tie up individual 'kills'."
I've fleshed the passage on this out a bit. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Structure and, aside perhaps from the point immediately above, detail look fine to me.
  • Happy to go with Joe's assessment of the images.
  • Source-wise, notwithstanding a welcome review by Brian or Nikki, I have to admit I'm wondering about the emphasis placed on the Bill Musgrave article, since I don't know his qualifications or how much quality control the B of B Historical Society exercises on material it publishes. Do other reviewers have any thoughts? All others look reliable to me.
    • I personally think the article is okay as it seems to generally match up with the other sources I have seen but I'll bow to consensus on this. I have cut down the references to Musgrave by about half, substituting more stable references to Beedle, Saunders etc. About half of the remaining references to him are backed up by others, and the other half are more obscure, anecdotal-type stuff about his childhood and family. In my search for more sources I also found material for a new section at the end about his character and reputation, which I think fleshes out the article nicely and wraps it up a bit better. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry haven't been back lately, I will look the whole thing over again soon. In the meantime, I think you're on the right track with Musgrave, that is you should probably use him just to flesh out early life and/or anecdotal info but concentrate on your other, more clearly reliable, sources for the operational aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Cheers Ian. Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Hi again Johnny, I've checked the changes, and see no reason not to promote now. The passage about the Ju 52s is complicated but that's not your fault and I think you've explained it about as well as one could -- I just tweaked a little there, plus a couple of other things we discussed previously. Well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Thank you very much for this Ian. Looks great. Have a top weekend. Cliftonian (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • A couple of long quotes in Character that should be shortened or blockquoted
  • FN12, 26, 30: page formatting
  • Why is Osprey wikilinked in Saunders but not Holmes? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Cliftonian (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's a couple prose comments from me.
  • invalided - link, perhaps? Doesn't seem to be a common term
  • In Commonwealth English it is. I think it's clear from context anyway, no? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The section #Early life has 3 mentions of South Africa in three sentences. Might want to find a way to trim it.
  • I removed the second mention as I think most people will know (certainly from context) which Jo'burg we are talking about. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I remember hearing that World War II is more common in the US, and Second World War is more common in the UK. Perhaps standardize the use?
  • I personally quite like mixing it up to give the prose some variety, but since this article is relatively short we'll go with "Second World War". —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Both paragraphs in #Early war start with No. 43 Squadron (and the next paragraph starts No. 263 Squadron). Rather repetititive
  • limp north - people limp. Aircraft don't, at least not in a literal sense. Perhaps another term?
  • I don't see any need to change this one—it's a common usage in a military context when referring to ships, aircraft etc that are damaged and returning to base. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mrs Wendy Bryan - Why the "Mrs"? Wendy is generally a woman's name, so per WP:HONORIFIC this is not necessary
  • My intention was to gently make clear why her surname was different, but I guess this isn't really necessary. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • with Wendy Bryan present - Why not just Bryan, as you've just mentioned her the paragraph above? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the review and the helpful comments Crisco. I hope my replies are satisfactory. Have a great Sunday. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers Crisco. I'll be there. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Obama[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Projects: WP:OBAMA, WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:POLITICS, WP:WMNHIST, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
Leading editors: User:Tvoz, User:Loonymonkey, User:Bobblehead, User:Happyme22, User:HughD

This article is about the First Lady of the United States. Now that she has been in office for 6 years, there have been a lot of eyes on the article and there has been a lot of refinement since the last nomination 4.5 years ago. This is a very odd nomination. Among the 18 people with at least a dozen edits to the article, no one has edited the article since November 2013. Thus, we can see that the article is now very stable. I think it is greatly improved over the previously nominated versions. Although I remain the leading editor in terms of number of edits, the vast majority of those were prior to FAC1. Nonetheless, I will take the lead on this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments - Several things stand out to me when I read this:  Noahcs  (Talk) 15:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • LGBT Rights section has one sentence that is over half the paragraph. Also, with the repeated use of the phrase "his support"", it appears to read like an advertisement for Barack instead of Michelle.  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Better, but the first paragraph still seems off to me. First, they are not reflecting on Michelle Obama herself, they are mostly referring to policies and personal views that Barack Obama shares. Second, the comments were given at what was basically a fundraiser which seems to be incompatible with WP:NPOV. It still reads like an advertisement written for Barack. Perhaps if you changed it to something like "Both her and her husband have been committed to _______. Together they support _____. They feel ______. They both have been _____." I assume their viewpoints match on these issues?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On that same issue, shouldn't the Let's Move section be bigger? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her healthy foods program her signature program?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's Move! has its own article. This section summarizes that and has a {{main}} tag to send the reader to a more detailed coverage of the topic. This article is not about Let's Move. The dedicated article is 7449 characters of readable prose, while this section is 1541 characters. Note that the WP:LEAD of that article, which is also suppose to summarize the topic is only 1371 characters. That is a good size for a summary. If that article were really large and it had a full-size LEAD (about 3000 characters), I would be more worried about the content here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Only two sentences and one source under "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns".  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Can we merge "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns" and "2008 Presidential campaign and election" to a "Early campaigns"? How much encyclopedic content do political wives have regarding their husband's early careers. I might be able to find content about how the couple considered his foray into politics. In fact, some content may have gotten thrown out with the bathwater during some of the high vandalism periods.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Also note that the family section has a lot of content related to how his political career affected the family. Do you think all the content is where it should be?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I think her life before and after meeting Obama should be more distinct; the article blurs the line between them. I would definitely consider moving the section about her daughters to the bottom under "First Lady". I'm not sure if I would give "Religion" its own subsection, but that's fine either way.  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Note that meeting Obama now is the start of a subsection. What stuff about her daughters are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm referring to the section starting at "The Obamas' daughters attended the...". It seems that there should be a family life section under "First Lady" that shows their lives while they are in office.  Noahcs  (Talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Everything in that paragraph before "Malia and Sasha now attend Sidwell Friends School..." belongs where it is. That is not FLOTUS content. I am not sure how to fit the rest of the paragraph in the FLOTUS section either although an argument might be made that it belongs there. I am not sure it really does.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Family and Education" seems a bit long, couldn't it be split up into other sections?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a tough subject to write about because so many things overlap with her. This article has to balance information about Michelle, Barack, her role as first lady, his presidency, and their family as a whole. I think the nominator has done a good job, but I'm not sure about Featured Status just yet  Noahcs  (Talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that it just jumps around a lot without relying on summarizing issues. It's just not tightly edited. This section in particular is a mess. It talks about her hiring Jackie Norris then goes to military families then to criticism of her being a "feminist nightmare" and then to Sasha and Malia in China?  Noahcs  (Talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment This version

  • On March 20, 2012, Michelle Obama said her husband's Supreme Court nominees will weigh in on decisions that will determine whether Americans can "love whomever they choose." "Jarrett, Michelle Obama pushed for gay marriage". Washington Wire. 5/9/12. Retrieved January 22, 2013.  That link is to an unrelated photo at Time. The date 5/9/12 is ambiguous and should be turned into prose.
  • On her first trip abroad in April 2009, she toured a cancer ward with Sarah Brown, wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Do we need this? What does it tell us? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Using that as a highlight of her first trip abroad, sort of tells us about what type of person she his. It is not like they dragged her around town kicking and screaming. Also, she surely has her own publicity machine. If this is the first highlight, we should show the readers what her publicity machine produced as her first highlight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I am off to the gym. I will look at these in a few hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Support I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. I've checked prose and a couple of the sources. This is broadly there, glad you didn't trivialise this. But I have a couple of queries. I think there is a clash between "As the wife of a Senator, and later the First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women" and the later bits about her being the least known candidate's spouse. She may still be less well known than Hilary Clinton's spouse, but there were other candidates in that race. Do you have sources for her being a fashion icon as a senator's wife, or would it be more accurate to say something like "As the wife of a presidential candidate, and especially as First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women". "Obama advocated of her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." may make sense in American English but to me it jars "Obama advocated for her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." would I think be slightly better; if it means that she lobbied Senators and Congressmen to support certain bills then I would prefer that you say that. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • See "In July 2007, Vanity Fair listed her among '10 of the World's Best Dressed People.'"- She was clearly a fashion icon at least a year and a half before becoming FLOTUS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • of --> for--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tony. July 2007 was five months into the presidential campaign. Is there anything indicating she was considered a fashion icon before the campaign when she was just known as a senator's wife? ϢereSpielChequers 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I am still digging, but what I am finding is that Barack was a fashion icon before the campaign per this and this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
        • WereSpielChequers, According to the electronic response that I got back from the Chicago Public Library "Ask a librarian" portal, which identifies itself as the CPL E-mail Reference Team, Ms. Obama was not mentioned in Vogue or Vanity Fair before the February 2007 announcement. However, prior to that date, the couple was listed in both the 2005 and 2007 Hottest couples lists by Ebony. Obama was also mentioned as "ever so stylish" during the January 2005 inauguration balls in her Maria Pinto-designed gown per Anthony, Florence (January 13, 2005). "Go with the Flo: Denzel turns 50". New York Amsterdam News 96 (3). p. 18. .--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks Tony, nice work ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonic, Conker, that animal you totally knew about already, your little sister, Manaphy, Overly Attached Girlfriend, Batgirl, Kirlia, Gerard Way, the kid I can't give a silly name to because he's already a joke, and a host of other fun friends go on adventures together. (Partially) IN SPACE! You'll probably recognize the intro theme if you were, or had, a kid in the mid-2000s.

Introduction aside, I've been building this article up since early April; it passed GA in early July and has had one (successful) peer review since. Uncommonly, I've added a large amount of content to the page after it passed GA (in the History and Reception areas, specifically), as the reviewer, who unfortunately has recently expressed little desire to stay on Wikipedia, suggested that there might not be enough content for FA. I really, really want to avoid that trap, so I've spent hours and hours gathering every usable source I could find on the Internet. It's been frustrating how little has been written about what I remember being (and, by the available evidence, seems to have been) a very popular show, but I now feel this is the most complete resource on the Internet for this series, even eclipsing the Sonic Wiki's page by having more out-of-universe content. I welcome all input, though I request you look at this with as open a mind as possible considering how few usable sources there are out there. Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

Support as per comments below. Will also be doing a review for the prose shortly. I'll also be adding my comments later today. URDNEXT (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

URDNEXT, do you have any thoughts yet? Tezero (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a second, looking at it right now... URDNEXT (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think mentioning trailers is notable enough. Tezero
  • I've snipped it from the infobox as it doesn't reveal much information. I do, however, want to keep them in the body text as they make up pretty much the only information we have about the show's early development. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, The plot follows a group of anthropomorphic animals originating in the games—such as Sonic the Hedgehog, Tails, Amy Rose, and Cream the Rabbit—and a human boy named Chris Thorndyke I think the "such as" should be removed. URDNEXT (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not only them. They're the main ones who are with Chris most of the time in seasons one and two, but Rouge, Knuckles, Shadow, etc. are also important parts of the series. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Image and source review by czar[edit]

While I don't feel prepared to do a prose review for this article, I'd like to contribute an image and source review:

  • Three fair use images, all with rationales. Cover art is too large (length times width > 100,000 pixels, so tagged for resize). Cover art rationale is good. Still image rationale could use an expansion on "These characters, the art, and the setting would be difficult to describe adequately in text only." Comic book rationale needs expansion on almost all criteria.
  • Resized cover art; it's a little under 90,000 pixels now. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Beefed up still image rationale. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure the comic image is necessary; do you think things like this are standard? I've never seen another anime with a comic book adaptation for comparison. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think an image could be useful since it's a comic, but as we have a limit on fair use assets in an article, might I suggest adding a section of a strip as an example instead of the cover art?
I'll take a look. I've also considered a different cover that shows more than just Sonic speeding at the screen. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I can delve into the strips if you want, but they're full-page comics so I don't know how much a reduced image would give a reader. I kinda like these covers: 13 26 30 27 34 - they show the comics' relatively silly and non-canonical nature, and for what it's worth some of them show what Bokkun looks like. You can view them, right, czar? (I don't really want to log out of my account to check, because I'm not sure I remember my password.) Tezero (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see all but 26. Perhaps 34 or 13? I wonder what they'll be like at low-res, though. Even if the strip is full-page, that's a better case for the fair use rationale than cover art apropos of nothing.
I think I'll go with 13, then, czar; it more explicitly shows something that corroborates the text and wouldn't happen in the actual show, and it doesn't have the minor illustration flaw of showing Amy with human feet (they're more like blobs). Any further comments? I assume this needs a few spotchecks? Tezero (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
czar: done. Tezero (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No free use images
  • What free use images do you think would be appropriate? I don't think they're standard for anime articles; I can't remember the last time I used one in a GA or FA other than Pokémon Channel. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not required at all—I was just noting that there weren't any. I imagine the only ones you could use here would be photos of the people involved in voicing or drawing or creating the series.
  • The article associates this show with the "gotta go fast" catchphrase, but does a source actually mention that this was the first venue to initiate the catchphrase?
  • No, but the credits cite that it's the show's theme song and, well, there's no evidence of it appearing any earlier. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Then it would be original research to say that it was the first appearance. You can say it was an appearance, though. czar  00:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not so hot on the interview sources, but the current norm is to allow them as long as they're not excessively sketchy
  • Yeah, it's kind of a weird rule; I hope it helped to verify that a couple had been linked from Mike Pollock's website. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was a smart way to handle those, even if it departs somewhat from typical citation method
  • Citations appear consistent, for the most part. Archie Comics citations need final punctuation. Books need publisher information as a minimum (ideally with city). Highbeam citation is incorrect.
  • Done for Archie. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one had this publisher issue, but done. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with it? Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved Highbeam myself
  • WP:VG/RS check: Games Asylum needs to be vetted—not sure author credibility is enough. GamesFirst has shaky notability—should also be vetted. Also not sure about the sources used for the "gotta go fast" final refs.
  • As for the "gotta go fast" sources, I can remove them if you want, but they're only being used to cite the appearance of a phrase in game journalism. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't author credibility be enough for Games Asylum? The site didn't write it; he did. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • GamesFirst looks the shakiest of the three; how are sites typically vetted? So far I've just gone by whether they're already listed at WP:VG/RS, but I don't really understand the methodology behind that or how it might apply to GamesFirst. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If the author was the sole expert on the subject (e.g., a professor), she wouldn't need an editorial staff checking her work. (Even still, that's a self-published source method—usually we rely on a publication for reliability.) If it's a journalist, even a known journalist, the idea is that the publication (the reliable source) provides the editorial integrity through an editorial policy, to keep the content accurate. Unless the journalist is a Sonic expert, she'd need editorial support. Sources can be vetted at WT:VG/RS—just follow the directions at the top and indicate why you find the source credible. Other editors will search for the backgrounds of the main writers, look for an editorial policy, and check how often the source is cited by other publications.
I'll ask, with a tag of urgency as this is an FAC. I suppose it wouldn't be catastrophic if these were found unreliable - I deliberately squeezed the other reviewers' toothpaste tubes hard just in case - but I'd also like to have a larger opinion pool. We'll see what happens. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Impulse Gamer a source where we'd care about their review? Is there a vetted anime source list I should know about?
  • Not as far as I know. I get the feeling the Anime project is pretty liberal on sources as long as they're reasonably professional. Impulse is not in WP:VG/RS; should I remove it? Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd remove Impulse unless there is an argument for its reliability. Otherwise it's just some guy's opinion on the Internet
Done. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 19: ✓
  • I'll pause here for now
  • Highly recommend archiving the unarchived sources
  • I've never used WebCite before; I'm setting up an account now to check it out. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No need to sign up, just use and enter the URL and an email. I can show you shortcuts for using it with Google Chrome if you end up using it enough
czar, done. Tezero (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

czar  23:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • 13: alter "don't work for some reason." to match text, also punct on outside, actually better off removing the direct quote. Where is the quote that 13c is referencing? Same for 12c
  • The quote's "doesn't work for some reason"; fixed that - but I'd rather keep it if you don't mind, as it might be OR to interpret what "doesn't work" means. As for 12c, the specific quote is "I heard one of the game voices and based it loosely on that. I wasn't told sure which one." Tezero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The idea is to match the source so I'd remove the don't/doesn't. In retrospect, that doesn't matter as much. The extrapolation on 12c/13c should fit the original quote, though. We only know what one voice actor said, not whether that was their overall practice. czar  01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Tailored to Pollock specifically. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 59: "three stars" out of what? and what is "also assessing its appropriateness for children"? (rhetorical questions—just fix in text)
  • Out of five, and they were assessing how appropriate the show was for children; I'd left that out because it wasn't a comment on the show's quality, but I've decided to include a very brief summary of the review. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good czar  01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 3: "the first—and is currently the only"?
  • There haven't been any other Sonic anime series. Should I rephrase? Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's not in the source, it's original research, so yep czar  01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems trivial, but okay. Done. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 16: "on December 1, 2003" not necessarily true—that's just when the source was published. This is also unclear—what do you mean it was the "second"? Source doesn't say that
  • I wasn't quite sure what to do there; 4Kids licensed it from the beginning - ShoPro couldn't have been the first, as Sonic X had already been running in the US for months by the time ShoPro was appointed. Am I confusing "license holder" with what 4Kids does? As for the date, I've changed it to "November 2003" - that might still be too OR-y, though; should I just leave it that the appointment of ShoPro was announced in December or something? Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I know less about the licensing than you do! We can only say what the source explicitly says, which is that ShoPro became a licensee or whatever in late 2003. czar  01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean about the terminology specifically, but I suppose you wouldn't in this case, either. Removed. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

czar  00:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Jimmyblackwing would disagree that something like "Sonic X was extensively merchandised in various forms of media and other products." could be left unsourced, or even sourced to multiple items so as to make that claim
  • 56: ✓, though possibly (almost definitely) unreliable source
  • I would be remiss if I gave a check for the possibly unreliable sources before we heard back, so I'll have to wait on that. Also there were a bunch of corrections on the sources above, so that either means that I need to do more spot checks (after we hear back) or that I can have some kind of affirmation from somewhere else that the sources are okay
  • Support on images. Verdict on sources pending feedback from WT:VG/RS (or this FAC) on unreliable sources czar  02:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • czar, one user has given feedback: GamesAsylum and Inside Gaming Daily are reliable; GamesFirst! (which I've already removed) and GameBreaker are not. If no further objections are made anytime soon, should these two just be classified as, at the least, situationally reliable for here? No word on when any would be made. Tezero (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by DarthBotto[edit]

I will be beginning my review shortly. Stand by. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 22:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DarthBotto, do you have any initial thoughts? Perhaps on the sources at WT:VG/RS? (Sorry if this is annoying; I just don't understand why readers of that talk page seem to be jumping right past the two discussions I opened.) Tezero (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's probably because you lumped a whole bunch of them together, and didn't appear to make any sort of attempt to evaluate them at all yourself... Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Would I be allowed to evaluate them myself, Sergecross73? I'd clearly be biased in favor of them being reliable, because a current FAC and an upcoming one use them. I assumed that would be somewhat of a conflict of interest. Tezero (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, you could still create more of a case for them though. Like do some research on them, present some facts, and then let others determine it. (You could find/link to whether or not they have an editorial policy, an "about us" section, have been used as a reference point by other reliable sources, has writers who have previously written for other reliable sources, etc etc. And if you can't find a lot of these types of things, that may answer the question for you as well... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll look into them now. Tezero (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, done. I wasn't able to find any evidence of GamesFirst!'s reliability, so I had to strike it altogether. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "...however, a further twenty-six were aired elsewhere from 2005 to 2006". Maybe a mention of where else it was broadcast? I mean, if it's largely international, then a more appropriate use of words would do well here.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The rest of the first paragraph is sound.
  • The proper word usage for originating is "originating from", rather than "originating in".
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it would seem like the rest of the second paragraph is rather sound, as well. I would prefer more comma usage in place of the dashes while describing the main characters we've seen previously, but what you have admittedly does the job.
  • I'd like to keep the first set of dashes as swapping them for commas would result in saying "and Cream the Rabbit, and a human boy named Chris", which I think would sound awkward out loud without the increased pauses brought by em-dashes. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have issues with the tense of the third paragraph, as it uses "has" and "have" for describing the reviewers' consensus, while also referencing it as a past occurrence. The correct form would be to consistently speak of it in past tense, even if utilizing reviews from a day prior, (which you're not).
  • I had it the other way as reviews for things typically come out all at once, but I suppose anime's different. Done. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mmm... I'm still not satisfied with the dashes in place of the commas. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed them in the 3rd paragraph. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Stand by for more. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a complaint, but consider just making the copyediting changes you think are needed yourself rather than notifying me. That's what I usually do during FACs and GANs, except for changes that are more open-ended or where I'm presenting multiple options for the writer to choose from. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
DarthBotto, since you're back, I'm wai-ting. (I'm not mad; I just couldn't resist.) Tezero (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero, apologies. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have watched this show somewhat, but it's been years since I last did do. Do they clarify what kind of planet the characters are from? I'm asking because not only do I not know, but because this section doesn't really discuss this, aside from a mention that Earth is a parallel world. Could this be included for ignorant readers such as yours truly?
  • They don't; they don't even give it a name beyond variations of "Sonic's world". (Fanfics, including a >50k-word one I've written, tend to call it "Mobius" in keeping with the Archie comics, AoStH, and SatAM, but this isn't official or even completely widespread.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. Alrighty, let it be. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe this section could be trimmed down significantly, while also maintaining the key elements. As it stands, it seems a little too detailed. I bet a third of this could be removed and it would be more direct and not overly detailed.
  • Well, it's long for an anime. That said, I've tried trimming before and while there's been some success (it actually used to be about 150% its current size, if you can believe that), some changes have created ambiguity by not explaining the context enough, these having been fixed during PresN's review. If you've watched it, are there any parts you think go into too much detail specifically given how much time they take up or how important they are to the series' overall continuity? (For example, I removed a lot of Amy being aggravated at her chronic friendzoning because it didn't affect the overall plot much.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm looking over it again and the length doesn't seem to be too terrible of an issue. I'll think it over. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That being said, this section is well-written. It doesn't seem to suffer from weasel sentences or any other extraneous details like that. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The show was created by TMS Entertainment." - Do you have a better source other than the credits?
  • THEM mentions it in passing, so I've added that. Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "but the second season is mostly based on the plots of Sonic Adventure 1 and 2". I think this could be rewritten as "but the second season is mostly based on the plots of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2". I would copyedit it, but I think you should be given the discretion to apply the suggestion in this particular case, as it's not the most prevalent in my mind.
  • No, you're right; Sonic Adventure 1 isn't the official title, though "SA1" and "SA2" are well-understood by the Sonic fanbase. (Personally, I prefer "Adve. 1" and "Adve. 2" to disambiguate from the Advance games.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So far as the portion about the two trailers, do you have a better source than YouTube? Are there any reliable sources that describe the conditions of the trailer/intro you have included?
  • The report on the World Hobby Fair does that - normally I don't think it'd need a secondary source, but technically the fact that it was exhibited there doesn't appear in the video itself, only in the uploader's title. Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For the most part, the "Creation and development" section is in ship shape, with the exception of what I described.
  • In the "Broadcast and localization" subsection, I really like the use of links- it really feels connected to other materials.
  • Er, thanks, but are there really that many, or are the ones there really that profound? I don't really see what you're describing. Is there an example such that I might take your advice for future projects? Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, I liked the mention of Editing of anime in American distribution. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm doing a bit of copyediting here and there.
  • Overall, this section is very well sourced and the references seem to be reliable. One question for an ignorant fool: What is THEM Anime? I see it popping up over and over and I was curious about what it is and if it's reliable.
  • It appears fairly often in anime articles, such as the FA School Rumble. (Actually, I was perusing that very page to see what sites I might hit up for reviews and that's where I found THEM. I can't emphasize enough how frustrating my search for secondary sources for this was; this one was a copacetic find.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Word. I think it will suffice as a source. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Honestly, this section seems to be in good order itself. I feel like it's properly sourced with reliable references and the wording is of encyclopedic quality. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to the diligence and attentiveness of the primary editor, in addition to the enhanced quality of this page, despite difficulty in finding secondary sources, I am giving this my vote of Support. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Review X by PresN[edit]

  • The X stands for "eXtremely standard". That means it's cool! Jumping ahead of DarthBotto's review, since I've delayed this enough:
  • "Chris tries to hide the animals from them until Cream accidentally reveals them" - uses "them" twice in a row to mean different things
  • Added an antecedent. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentences starting with "At first only Knuckles" and "With the help of an echidna girl" get really snakey- try to chop them up.
  • It was also kind of confusing. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea that Tikal is "from the past" and that Chaos "goes to sleep" with her is clear as mud. I know you're trying to keep the plot section from getting overlong, but that bit's just confusing.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Shortly, Eggman" - shortly thereafter? or is this just a Tom Swifty?
  • It wasn't; he's actually one of the tallest characters. I guess "blows up" (as in "blows up half of the Moon") could be one 'cause he's fat, but eh. Fixed, though. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Eggman rebuilds the Moon but its position shifts" - this whole sentence is awkwardly constructed
  • Reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Eggman is arrested" - I know this is a kids cartoon, but... for what? Did he move the moon on purpose?
  • Yeah. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Six months later" - snakey sentence
  • Fixed. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "six years have passed" - no need for italics for emphasis
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "They board Tails' new spaceship" - this sentence is really, really long
  • Merged the first clause into the reasonably sized previous sentence. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Later, Rouge finds Shadow" - another snakey sentence
  • Split. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "void her sight and hearing" - void is a strange word to use unless you are talking about a warranty; try destroy since you don't want to use "remove" again in the same sentence.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Knuckles pushes for" - snakey comma-splice in this sentence
  • Moved the comma earlier; see what you think. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The heroes find the Chaotix" - who are the Chaotix?
  • Added an elaboration earlier. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "it includes non-outlined CGI elements" - what's a "non-outlined" CGI element?
  • You know how traditional animation has outlines? I'm talking about CGI that isn't cel-shaded; I didn't really know how else to word it. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You talk about how the producers "hoped" the show would increase the popularity of the games; is there any proof it did/did not?
  • Not really; a follow-up to that statement would be ideal but does not exist as far as I know. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "as 4Kids is infamous among anime fans for doing" - editorializing
  • The source actually says that. If it still comes off as POV and you have a suggestion for rephrasing, I can fix it. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 'work for some reason."' - period goes outside the quote unless you quote a full sentence (and the quoted sentence is also the end of your sentence, as it is here). WP:MOSQUOTE
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You say when/what dates it was aired in Japan; do you have that information for the US?
  • Oddly, no. That information used to be in the article, but no reliable source could be found so it was removed. I would like to add it, though; do you have a suggestion for where English (or French) anime airdates might be hosted? Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "SONIC X ~ORIGINAL SOUND TRACKS~" - drop the all-caps
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "but they destroy the robots" - is they the humans or the animals?
  • Animals. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "but he (along with Eggman) is locked up for supposedly working with Eggman" - Eggman is locked up for working with Eggman?
  • Reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "After more malicious" - this sentence wanders on forever
  • Split into 3. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "also came in for some criticism" - odd phrasing
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Among critics" - drop this
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which he summarized thus" - thus? really?
  • What word should I use instead? Those are Jones' words. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The paragraph starting with "Common Sense Media" seems out of place- neither sentence has anything to do with each other.
  • They're both reviews that don't really give quality assessments of individual aspects of the show. Do you have another suggestion? Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "despite never airing in Japan" - I thought the first 2 seasons did air in Japan?
  • Fixed. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Your 1Up sources are dead; if you move quickly you might be able to find an backup, and then archive that in turn with
  • Amazingly, it worked. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Allmusic and Allgame are AllMusic and AllGame, respectively
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
--PresN 20:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked the "infamous" and "thus" bits; I don't have any good source for non-Japanese anime airdates (I've tried before). Ready to Support, assuming the DarthBotto review above doesn't end up mocking my attempt at a prose review. --PresN 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support by NathanWubs[edit]

Support , I have been following this review for a while now. Now that problem with the sources have been fixed I can give my support. I cannot comment on the prose as I am not the most stellar writer. With all the work that has gone into it, and all the fixes now too I cannot give anything else but my support for this article to be FA.. NathanWubs (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dank's comments[edit]

  • Ian asked me to have a look, this is what I see in the lead:
  • "18", "26", "fifty-two": consistency.
  • "non-Japanese regions": does that mean "outside Japan"?
  • "American localization", "English-language localization": an ambiguous technical term (it can mean a range of things, generally including translation)
  • "warping": ambiguous (teleporting, traveling fast, traveling faster than the speed of light, etc.)
  • "adjusting to their recognition as celebrities": "recognition" isn't quite right here.
  • "merchandised": possibly jargony, I'd have to run it by a sample of readers to know. "The merchandising included" would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Pobeda[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pobeda was one of five Russian pre-dreadnought battleships captured during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She participated in all of the major naval battles of the war and was eventually sunk by Japanese artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. After the war, she was refloated by the Japanese and incorporated into their navy after three years of repair. She was not very active in Japanese service, serving mostly in training roles, but her most significant service was during the Battle of Tsingtao during World War I when the Japanese besieged the German-held Chinese port. She was disarmed during the early 1920s in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty and may have been broken up around the same time, although some sources suggest that she was not scrapped until the end of World War II. The article passed a MilHist A-class review last month and should be in pretty good shape. I trust, however, that reviewers will point out any infelicities of language or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Naval_Ensign_of_Russia.svg: source link is dead
    • If this were anything more simple geometric shapes, I'd be concerned about this, but since that's all it is, I don't believe that this is a problem.
  • File:Pobeda1904Port-Artur.jpg: if author is unknown, how can we be sure date of death is more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right, we can't. I've deleted the PD-70 tag and added a US Navy one as we can't be sure who actually took the photo and rule out a naval attache. The photo ended up in Navy hands, either by purchase or by its own people, so I can only assume that copyright ended up with them as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I don't have much, and it's not worth holding the ship for ...
  • "The ship was transferred" Wouldn't "assigned" be better, given that it didn't have a previous posting?
  • Good catch.
  • Construction
"at a cost of 10,050,000 rubles" this feels awkwardly tacked on the sentence. I know it refers to how much the ship cost, but grammatically, it doesn't seem to meet up with anything.
  • It's thematically linked, I believe, to the official acceptance of the ship. But if that doesn't work, do you think that I should split it off into its own sentence?
  • Yellow Sea
"Around 18:00, her topmasts were destroyed ... " This sentence is a bit confusing because I gather it's combining damage from Probeda and damage from what happened to another ship. I think they should be separated.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think, rather, that I'll delete the bit about the topmasts entirely as it's not particularly important to this ship since she wasn't a flagship that needed to signal her subordinate ships. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment, leaning Support -- Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and, having checked changes made since then I'm pretty close to supporting for FA. Just one thing, I can see you've changed the emphasis of when she was likely scrapped, which is fine, but I'm not sure about the wording of it. Finishing with "some sources disagree" leaves one hanging and, besides, there's only one source cited, so is it really some or just one? Based on what I see here, I'd prefer the end to be worded "She was probably scrapped in 1922–23, but at least one source suggests she was refloated and hulked, serving until being broken up at Kure in 1946", citing both McLaughlin and Jentschura et al, and then your footnote could just be along the lines of "She is not listed in Fukui Shinzo's authoritative Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of World War II". Happy to discuss, of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That works well, I think, with one modest tweak to your wording of the note. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No prob, happy to support. FTR, as well as prose, structure, detail and images, I looked over the sources at ACR and the one minor issue I saw was rectified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this at the A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Indian Head cent[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that was was in Americans' pockets for most of a century, counting the time that it circulated after they stopped making them. Widely disregarded at the time as too common, it is today both admired and widely collected. The article has had a most searching GAN by TonyTheTiger.Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Images: Captions that are not complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, as always. I know which one you are talking about; the GAN reviewer felt it was a sentence, and I am accordingly not inclined to change it. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)(the one of the Civil War token)


  • By providing an exact date, which is actually later than I'd have thought, it almost sounds like something specific happened that caused the silver coinage to disappear. But I rather expect that that was the culmination of a gradual process; am I correct? If so, you might want to change commerce in June 1862 to "by" June 1862. Canada was mostly using US silver and gold coins at that point, though they had issued their own coppers by then and there were also some provincial copper issues.
Not really gradual, though Carothers indicates there may have been some hoarding by merchants by the start of 1862, though more in anticipation of a shortage of change than in an attempt to profit. But in June, the value of silver coins vs. paper or gold rose to the point where it was worth exporting them to Canada, where they could be exchanged for gold on a par basis as Canada remained on the gold standard. "The operation became profitable as soon as the gold discount on paper exceeded the costs of collecting silver, shipping it, and bringing back the gold." p. 155.
  • beginning in 1874, the Mint re-issued these, lowering the demand for new cents. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but the Mint didn't recoin these, but just pulled them out from whatever vault they'd been sitting since being redeemed?
Yes, exactly. I'll clarify. Only the bronze ones, the copper-nickel ones were melted.
  • I'd shorten United States Post Office Department to the Post Office.
  • In late 1908, Roosevelt sat for sculptor shouldn't this be "sent"?
No, sat. Brenner was designing a Isthmian Canal Commission medal to be given to (American) employees of multiple years' service. Roosevelt appeared on them.
  • Minor point, but suffixes like LLC and Inc. need not be included in the bibliographical cites. Not actionable here, but you could save yourself some typing in the future.
  • Put Mackenzie's title in title case. Other sources and cites look good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've taken care of those, other than the LLC which I shall leave as is for now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • AND THEIR NAME IS LEGION, - All caps in the original? I cracked up reading this, BTW.
Yes. Snowden and coin collectors of the time had an interesting relationship. Did you get the "blizzard" joke?
  • According to Breen - Introduce him?
  • James Longacre did often sketch his elder daughter, and there are resemblances between the depictions of Sarah Longacre and the various representations of Liberty on Longacre' - can we avoid repeating "Longacre" so much?
Pared down to one.
  • , and did any wish to order in bulk, they could be purchased at a discount - what does this add? Also, would "anyone" work better?
I think it's interesting that money could be bought for less than face value.
  • Many of these tokens were made of bronze, copper with an admixture of tin and zinc to strengthen it, - why not just link bronze and leave out the definition?
  • Redesign and change of composition (1859–1864) - a fairly long section... perhaps split along the lines of "Redesign" and "Change of composition"? Trimming some of the politics might help too.
I think it's useful information, and if the reader is reading this, he's here for the history. Split.
  • but at Roosevelt's request, developed it for the double eagle after learning that under the 1873 act, an eagle could not appear on the cent. - feels like this could be simplified
I think the objection is to the triple use of eagle, so I've eliminated one of them.
  • Standardize whether or not you nowrap dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Axed. I think I've got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent article. Fifty years condensed into 27k characters. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

...And Justice for All (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth Metallica studio album, a masterwork of technical thrash and musically, one of their finest hours. I've been working on this article back and forth a year, and think it is ready for a FA candidature at its present state. I'm sure it would be an interesting read for those who will review it.--Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source check

Note: for the purpose of clarity, all citation numbers are given as of this revision, unless otherwise noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Cites 1, 2 & 3 are all from the band website. Generally, I'm not sure that's supposed to be used as a source, but since its just for release dates for the singles (as opposed to something more controversial like sales numbers or something), I doubt it would be a problem
  • Cite 8 will need fixed, it just goes to a blank page
  • Cite 14, the BBC review, just goes to a blank page
  • Cite 19, 500 greatest metal albums on Google books, is a dead link
  • Cite 28, Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s on Google books. Is there a page view option for this?
  • Cite 33 goes to CD Universe to cite a review from Q. Is there any other way to verify the Q review?
  • Cite 34 should probably have an "in German" language tag
  • Cite 35 will need an archived page since link no longer works right
  • Cite 37 and 72 seem to be the same; they should be merged
  • Cite 40 original url redirects to the page (at a different url). Perhaps update to the new URL?
  • Cite 43 if this one is referring to a print article, then disregard this comment, but if there is an online article, its missing the url
  • Cite 59, Canadian charts citation, is a dead link

A few other little things here and there, like a few format things to fix, or make more consistent

I've addressed all of your concerns L1A1 FAL, except for replacing the reviews by BBC Music and Q magazine. I think the BBC website is undergoing a reconstruction at the moment, and I'll update the url as soon as I can; as for Q, I don't have the September 1988 edition of the journal, so I went using CD Universal as a reference, which quotes the Q column.--Retrohead (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That's all I got for now. I'll keep an eye on this and pop in if I have any comments about the sources or anything else--L1A1 FAL (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I have made some edits on this page in the past, including (from what I can tell) one fairly large edit involving putting a quote into prose. However, I do not believe that I would be considered a "major contributor" to the article, therefore, I feel comfortable in offering my support for this article for featured status. If anyone feels the need to raise issue with my minor level of involvement with the article, then please dismiss my opinion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by LuciferMorgan[edit]

Album was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry in 2013, which isn't mentioned in the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Added it in the certification table. Thanks for the reminder.--Retrohead (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth adding to the "Commercial performance" section as well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Consider it done.--Retrohead (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The album's front cover is mentioned in the introduction, but nowhere else? A glaring omission this is, because there can be nothing in the lead which isn't discussed later on in the article. Lead's meant to summarise, not have exclusive information. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it adequate to add it to the background? It's too tiny to have a section of its own, and none of the other sections seems like a good fit to it.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Could do, I guess. If you tie it in with the revealing of the album title etc. at the end of that section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. I've shaken the order of the sentences a bit in order to avoid being repetitive with the prose in the lead.--Retrohead (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There was still an awful lot of repetition from the lead to the article body, so I reworked the material to reduce the problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Media review
  • File:Metallica_-_And_Justice_for_All.ogg: purpose of use should be expanded. Lyrical meaning can be conveyed with lyrics without the inclusion of a sample, so you need to be able to justify why a sample should be here. Same with File:Metallica_-_One.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've filled a more detailed rationale for both samples. I suppose the images are fine too.--Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

  • "...released on August 25 1988 on Elektra Records" - shouldn't it be by Elektra? I don't know if this is a grammatical idiosyncrasy of the area, but it seems to me that since Elektra is the label that released the album, "by" is the correct preposition. (I note that "by" is used in the lower in the body)
Corrected. It was "by" until a month ago, but must have been changed to "on" during the copyediting.
  • The background section seems like it's trying to cram too much into a single paragraph - I'd probably split the chronological bits into their own paragraph and treat the record label stuff separately. It also left me with the question of when the decision to go with Phonogram over Q Prime was made.
The thing is the record deal is part of the chronology. If I put it into another paragraph, the prose would jump chronologically backwards.
Well, right, in that it was an event, but it's more relevant to the question of who would release the album rather than when it would be written and recorded. Thematically it's a separate issue. I'd also assume that the contract wrangling started shortly after Master of Puppets was released in 1986 and their previous contract expired, which of course predates Hetfield's broken wrist (can we get a month and year for that, by the way?), Newsted the band, etc. It would make more sense to discuss the label bidding, then address the specific issues that affected the production of the album.
  • Only use first names the first time an individual is introduced - I noticed Newsted was repeatedly referred to by his full name, for instance.
I've reduced the names and attributed their roles in the their first mentioning in the text.
  • Relatedly: "...credited as written by Burton and played by Metallica's bassist at the time, Jason Newsted" - we already know that Newsted was the new bassist, and that he replaced Burton. I'd trim it to "credited as written by Burton and played by Newsted."
Surprised I haven't noticed this so far. Fixed, regardless.
  • Watch your tenses - there's an odd mix of past and present tense when it should generally be past tense. For instance, ""was written by German poet Paul Gerhardt, but is erroneously attributed to Burton" - it should be "but was erroneously" - another example: Borivoj Krgin's review of the album "it is the most ideal album he has heard" - should be "was the most ideal album he had heard"
Corrected this too.
  • Also check for passive voice - "Clink was fired", "Metallica's music was considered", etc.
Checked. There was another issue as whether the band was referred in third person plural or singular, but found no such omissions in the current state.
  • Why bother to include the Nielsen sales figures if they're incomplete?
For reader's curiosity, I believe. They aren't obligatory, but it won't hurt to have them.
  • There are several duplicate links in the article - there's a script you can install that helps you find them (you can get the code here if you don't already have it - it's the first line). Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Parsecboy, I don't have that script available, but found three repeatedly-linked words which I've corrected. However, I might be missing some, and your assistance would be more than welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
All you have to do is add importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]] to your common.js subpage, and it adds a button in your toolbox when you're on an article. It's rather useful. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, understood. Those were all of the duplicate links.
  • One other point I noticed today - the Metallica article characterizes Newsted's treatment during the production of this album as "hazing" - if that's correct, it should definitely be included here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I strongly believe that is not the issue, despite the band's page being FA. The current band members stated numerous times that information is not true.
Fair enough. Maybe the band's page ought to be fixed though, so they're in agreement. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Stroma, Scotland[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for consideration as a featured article. It covers the subject of Stroma, an island off the north coast of Scotland that was abandoned 50 years ago after a population collapse. Stroma is now completely uninhabited; visitors to Orkney will be familiar with the sight from the ferries of the island's ruined houses, which are also visible from the mainland. As well as telling the often colourful story of the island and its former inhabitants, it illustrates the struggle that many small island communities have faced in staying viable. It received a very good response from readers when it ran on DYK some months ago and has recently passed a Good Article review. Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Flag_of_Scotland.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Lymphad3.svg: licensing for both source images appears incorrect - the uploaders do not hold copyright to this design. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled about this one. They're self-created images; what licence should be used instead? Prioryman (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The images are self-created, but they are based on a pre-existing design, which may or may not be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The pre-existing designs are both most certainly PD (I'm sure you know nobody has copyrighted the saltire and the lymphad is centuries old). But does that mean that any self-created renderings of those designs have to be PD as well? It's not as if either of these images are non-free content or derivatives thereof. Prioryman (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it simply means you need to identify the designs as PD and give the appropriate source to support this. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually , I see the flag image already has a tag saying it's PD. The lymphad is from a 400-year-old coat of arms, so I've added a pd-ineligible tag to both the lymphad image and its source coat of arms. Both images are centuries old, pre-dating the existence of copyright law, so there clearly shouldn't be any question of them being PD. Prioryman (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport on comprehnsiveness and prose. looking good - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Due to its proximity to the Scottish mainland, Stroma has long been united with Caithness - certainly not united geographically! alternately, "has close ties with..." or something?
No, that doesn't really work - it should be politically united (as the intro says). Orkney has always been a separate domain. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
100 yards (91 m) inland - i think I'd make that "100 yards (90 m) inland" as it is not exactly 100 yards meant....
OK, i"ve made that change. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
can we link or explain "butt" and "ben"?
Good idea, I've added a footnote. It's the first time I've used that particular template; could you please check to confirm I've done it right? Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
yeah looks fine - I've used a different template but this is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
descriptors for Bella Bathurst?
OK, added. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
.. which discontinued any interest in serving the island - I think they'd "discontinue serving the island" or "ceased any interest in serving the island"
How about "abandoned"? Thematically it goes quite nicely with the abandonment of Stroma itself. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from CorinneSD

1) In the first sentence in the lead, I suggest changing "of the Scottish mainland" to "of the mainland of Scotland". I think using the name of the country rather than the adjective helps readers mentally locate the island (even though "Scotland" is in the article title).

2) At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lead, I suggest changing "The low-lying island" to "This low-lying island". It is referring to an island just named and discussed. 3) I suggest changing the wording of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead from:

"This low-lying island was inhabited from prehistoric times to 1962, when the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland"
"This low-lying island was inhabited from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland in 1962".
The reason for my suggested rewording is that the action of abandoning the island conceptually balances the phrase "was inhabited from prehistoric times" -- that is, it creates a mental image of the span of human activity -- and is more interesting than a date. To make the sentence even more powerful, you might consider taking out "for new homes on the mainland". You can explain that later. Then it would read:
"This low-lying island was inhabited from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it in 1962".
This is the kind of sentence that will make readers wonder why they abandoned it and continue reading. It gives sufficient information but not all the information.

3) Later in that paragraph is the following sentence:

"Stroma has been united politically with the mainland region of Caithness since at least the 15th century".
I would change "united politically" to "politically united".
I'm not sure that the phrase "the mainland region of" is necessary. You already mentioned Caithness in the first paragraph and it is implied in that sentence, "between the Orkney Islands and Caithness", that it is on the mainland of Scotland. There is also a link at Caithness. The sentence would be leaner without that phrase. Lean sentences often have more power.

4) In the next sentence, "Although it lies only a few miles off the Scottish coast,...", the pronoun "it" is slightly ambiguous. The reader has to stop for a second and realize that something that lies off a coast must be the island Stroma rather than the region Caithness. You might consider using "Stroma" instead of "it".

5) In this sentence:

"They were largely self-sufficient, by necessity, trading agricultural produce and fish with the mainlanders",
"They" also has potential for ambiguity (there are two plural nouns in the previous sentence). I suggest combining the two sentences as follows:
"Although Stroma lies only a few miles off the Scottish coast, the savage weather and ferociously strong tides of the Pentland Firth meant that the island's inhabitants were very isolated, causing them to be largely self-sufficient, trading agricultural produce and fish with the mainlanders."
(I would leave out "by necessity".)
I see you placed the phrase "low-lying island" after "Although" in this sentence, and used "Stroma's inhabitants" instead of "the island's inhabitants" in the main clause. While grammatically this is all right, stylistically there are problems:
(a) You are using the present participle and the present tense of the same verb in close proximity: "Although the low-lying island lies...".
(b) Introducing "Stroma" in the phrase "Stroma's inhabitants" at the beginning of the main clause creates a slight ambiguity: the reader may wonder whether these inhabitants are inhabitants of a different island from "the low-lying island".
I strongly urge you to reverse these, as I had suggested above, so that it reads:
""Although Stroma lies only a few miles off the Scottish coast, the savage weather and ferociously strong tides of the Pentland Firth meant that the island's inhabitants were very isolated, causing them to be largely self-sufficient, trading agricultural produce and fish with the mainlanders."
This way, I think it clear that "the island" in the phrase "the island's inhabitants" refers to Stroma.
I know you were trying to find the best place for "low-lying". I'm not sure it is needed in the lead. You've got a good description in the first paragraph of Stroma, Scotland#Geography, geology, flora and fauna.
If you really want it in the lead, perhaps add it right at the beginning:
Stroma is a low-lying island off the northern coast of the mainland of Scotland."

6) In this sentence:

"Most of the islanders were fishermen and crofters, with some also working as maritime pilots to guide vessels through the treacherous waters of the Pentland Firth",
I don't like the sound of "with some also working..." following a sentence where the verb is BE. I suggest changing the preposition phrase to a verb phrase:
"Most of the islanders were fishermen and crofters; some also worked as maritime pilots to guide vessels through the treacherous waters of the Pentland Firth".
The prepositional phrase "with..." minimizes the work of maritime pilots. Using an active verb phrase elevates it to an important occupation. You also have a "with" phrase shortly after this.

7) In the first paragraph of the section Stroma, Scotland# Geography, geology, flora and fauna, I see "north-west" and "south-east". I thought "northwest" and "southeast" were each one word.

8) In that same sentence,

"Stroma is located in the Pentland Firth about 2 miles (3.2 km) north-west of John o' Groats on the mainland, dividing the firth into two channels (the Inner Sound to the south, and the Outer Sound to the north),"
I would change:
"..., dividing the firth into two channels..." to:
"and divides the firth into two channels".
This makes it clear that it is Stroma, and not either the Pentland Firth or John o' Groats, that divides the firth into two channels.
Also, I would delete the parentheses around "the Inner Sound to the south, and the Outer Sound to the north" and use a comma: "...and divides the firth into two channels, the Inner Sound to the south and the Outer Sound to the north" (no comma in the middle).

9) In the first sentence of the second paragraph in Stroma, Scotland# Geography, geology, flora and fauna,

"The island is ringed by cliffs, varying in height from around 33 m (108 ft) on the west coast to low cliffs with a narrow rocky foreshore elsewhere",
I would change:
"The island is ringed by cliffs, varying in height..." to:
"The island is ringed by cliffs that vary in height..."
The verb is more direct and powerful than the participle.

10) The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of this section reads:

" The heavily indented coastline has a circumference of about 7 miles (11 km), indented by numerous geos or inlets produced by the cliffs being eroded along fault lines by the sea".
I suggest changing "produced by the cliffs being eroded along fault lines by the sea" to:
"produced when the cliffs by the sea are eroded along fault lines".
I see that you have written:
"The heavily indented coastline has a circumference of about 7 miles (11 km), indented by numerous geos or inlets created when the waves eroded the sea cliffs along fault lines."
When you read, "created...", you obviously interpreted it as "[which were] created...", judging by your choice of past tense "eroded", but it could be interpreted as "[which are] created...", in which case present tense "erode" would follow. Of course, it is your choice. In the one, you are describing what led to the formation of present geos and inlets. In the other, you are describing the on-going and continuous process of erosion. Just something to think about.

11) In the following sentence:

"It is located at the junction of the two fault lines and is connected by the sea by a subterranean passage 165 yd (151 m) long, created by erosion along the east-north-east fault",
I think it should be "and is connected to the sea", not "by the sea".

12) In the following sentence:

"It is said to have been used by islanders for smuggling and to conceal illegal distilling from HM Customs and Excise by hiding the stills and alcohol in a cave within the Gloup, called "the Malt Barn", which was only accessible at low tide",
I think you need to clarify "it". It's the subterranean passage, not the cave. You can say, "This passage".
I would remove the comma after "within the Gloup".

13) In the following sentence:

"The flora and fauna of Stroma is similar to that of the mainland",
I think the verb should be "are" since you have a plural subject, and "that" should be changed to "those":
"The flora and fauna of Stroma are similar to those of the mainland."

14) Regarding this sentence:

"The island is entirely treeless, its vegetation consisting primarily of grasses, heather and small flowers",
you might consider the following rewording:
"The island is treeless; its vegetation consists primarily of grasses, heather and small flowers".
If something is treeless, it has no trees, so "entirely" is unnecessary. Saying that an island or area is treeless -- just that, treeless -- creates a stunning image. I also think using the participle "consisting", minimizes the information that follows it. The verb is more descriptive.

15) In the section Stroma, Scotland#Demographics is the following sentence:

"They originally belonged to two different estates; the Freswick estate owned Nethertown, while the Mey estate owned Uppertown".
I suggest rewording as follows:
The settlements originally belonged to two different estates: the Freswick estate owned Nethertown and the Mey estate owned Uppertown".
I just don't think subordination is necessary here.

16) In the second paragraph in the subsection under History Stroma, Scotland#Prehistoric settlement and remains, there is a sentence that reads:

"They are located near midden, out of which animal bones and shells are eroding."
I wonder if you could add an adverb before "located" that would indicate the frequency:
  • always
  • often
  • usually
  • sometimes

17) The very next sentence is:

"Little appears to be known about their purpose and origins."

This sentence, with the possessive adjective "their", is getting pretty far away from the antecedent. You've also got several plural nouns between "their" and the antecedent. The next sentence also refers to "them" and "they". I suggest reminding the reader of the subject:

"Little appears to be known about the purpose and origins of these structures".

That's all I can do right now. CorinneSD (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

18) In the middle of the third paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#Life on Stroma: 17th and 18th centuries is the following sentence:

"The latter acquired Nethertown in 1721 and eventually also took possession of Uppertown as well by obtaining the wadset from the Kennedies, reportedly through skullduggery."
(a) You don't need both "also" and "as well". I would remove one. I think "as well" sounds better than "also" here.
(b) I've never seen a name that ends in "y", like "Kennedy", made into plural by changing the "y" to "i" and adding "es", as in study-studies. I think it should be "Kennedys", or "the Kennedy family".

19) In the fourth paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#19th and 20th centuries is the following sentence:

" As many as 560 vessels have had to be refloated in the Pentland Firth between 1830 and 1990 after getting into difficulties."

Because of the finite period 1830 to 1990, present perfect tense is incorrect for the verb: "have had". I see two ways to fix this:

1) Change "have had" to past tense: "had". The only problem with this is that it leaves out the idea that vessels may have continued to have to be refloated since 1990.
2) Reword the sentence as follows, keeping the present perfect tense:
"Many vessels -- as many as 560 between 1830 and 1990 -- have had to be refloated in the Pentland Firth after getting into difficulties."
(Use en-dashes; I don't know how to put en-dashes here.) That way, you keep the present perfect tense, indicating that it is a continuing circumstance, but you also are able to give a figure for a specific period. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see my additional comments at items #5 and 10, above. One additional comment:

20) The first sentence in the second paragraph in the lead reads:

"The island was inhabited from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland in 1962."
Grammatically, this is all right, but stylistically there is a problem: the use of the noun and verb form of the same word in close proximity:
"The island was inhabited....until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it..."
It would be good to figure out a way to avoid this. Perhaps:
"There was continuous human habitation on the island from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland in 1962."


"The island was inhabited from prehistoric times until the last of its residents abandoned it for new homes on the mainland in 1962."
The only problem with the first one is that you still have "habitation" and "inhabitants". I prefer the second one. (I wouldn't use "permanent residents" since that has other connotations, at least in the U.S., another phrase for "resident alien", or a resident who is not a citizen. I don't think "permanent" is necessary anyway.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

21) In the second-to-last paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#Geography, geology, flora and fauna is the following sentence:

"The passage is said to have been used by islanders for smuggling; they are said to have concealed illegal distilling from HM Customs and Excise by hiding the stills and alcohol in a cave within the Gloup, called "the Malt Barn", which was only accessible at low tide."
I think it could be made clearer and more concise by avoiding "they" after the semi-colon and rewording as follows:
"The passage is said to have been used by islanders for smuggling: the islanders are said to have concealed illegal distilling from HM Customs and Excise...", yielding:
"The passage is said to have been used for smuggling: the islanders are said to have concealed illegal distilling from HM Customs and Excise..."

CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • All done - thanks for the further comments. Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Ben MacDui
I think this is a fine article. I am very pressed for time right now and not 100% up-to-speed on FAC protocols. I am assuming that as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands its not OK for me to offer a formal opinion. If that's not the case, pls alert me.
  • Don't worry, it's absolutely fine to offer a formal opinion. Being a member of the WikiProject doesn't disqualify you. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone will agree, but Orkney Islands is a redirect becase the name of the archipelago is 'Orkney' and I would prefer 'islands of Orkney' or similar. Ditto under 19th century.
  • It's a fair point - fixed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'The heavily indented coastline has a circumference of about 7 miles (11 km),[9] indented by numerous geos' uses indented twice.
  • Changed the second "indented" to "punctuated". Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'A partially collapsed sea cave called the Gloup' if it is called 'the Gloup' should the T not be capitalised? Haswell-Smith does so.
  • Well spotted, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The flora and fauna section seems a little sparse to me. I imagine there is little or nothing that is specific to the island but a few species of local flora and maybe an estimate of bird/seal numbers woudl not go amiss (if they are available).
  • I don't have that info, I'm afraid - I've looked for it. Perhaps the island is too obscure to have been documented in that level of detail? Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'The settlements originally belonged to two different estates: the Freswick estate owned Nethertown and the Mey estate owned Uppertown' - this reads slightly clumsily to me and I suspect that finding a way to amalgamate it with the previous sentence might help to avoid using 'estate' three times in one sentence.
  • Good point, I've reworded it. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'Panoramic view of the north of Stroma, with Orkney in the distance. The Mains of Stroma, the houses of Nethertown and the top of the lighthouse can be seen.' In my view the 'The' before 'Mains' is redundant, in Scottish English at least.
  • Thanks, changed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'The population reached a peak of 375 people' - 'people' is redundant.
  • It could have meant sheep. ;-) But that's a good point, I've changed it. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
' (also known as "the Robber's Castle") ' - surley either the "Robber's Castle", or "The Robber's Castle"?
  • It's verbatim from the source, so I didn't feel I should change it... Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to know where the 'the fatal wounding of John Forbes of Watertown' took place.
  • See here. I've not found a reliable source for it though. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Rev George Low seems to lack a period after 'Rev'.
'in January–February 1937' repeats the year - could be 'in January–February of that year'.
'While smuggling may have been suppressed, ' repeats 'suppressed' from the prev. sentence.
  • Changed to "tackled". Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest that you use "dealt with" (or "resolved") instead of "tackled"? "Tackled" leaves open the possibility that the problem was not resolved. "Dealt with" suggests that the problem was resolved. CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I chose "tackled" because the smuggling issue clearly wasn't resolved. If you read on you'll see an account of smuggling wrecked goods from the 20th century - it was pretty clearly an endemic practice. Prioryman (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
'She hed all her wits boot her.' It's an uncommon dilaect but I just wanted to check it should not be 'aboot' which would be a more common usage.
Wick and Thurso can be linked.
Can we link 'Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society shop'?
  • To what? I don't think we have an article on it, do we? Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'I see Stroma was sold last week, and it's not sold this week' This is odd - can you check it's a verbatim quote?
  • Yes, it's verbatim. He's saying that he heard that Stroma had been sold last week but found this week that it hadn't been. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about Caithness CC as a red link - hard to see anyone not just adding material to Caithness.
  • Fair point, delinked. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think it appropriate, Geology of Orkney could be a 'See also'. You might also consider adding Mingulay and St Kilda as islands with similar histories, although I accept there are numerous other examples.
  • I've linked the islands. Thanks for your suggestions! Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Ben MacDui 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1850 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This article resurrects a series of long-forgotten hurricanes which collectively had their greatest impact on the northeastern United States. The 1850 season falls just outside the scope of the official hurricane database (1851–present), so the information in this article is more historical than it is scientific. After piecing together many nuggets of pertinent information, I've crafted what is to my knowledge the first true account of the "1850 Atlantic hurricane season". The article is important for a couple reasons. First, it serves as a reminder that cities like Baltimore and New York have long histories of hurricane impacts, so recent storms like Isabel and Sandy are not quite as incredible as one might believe. Also, some weather enthusiasts believe an expansion of the hurricane database might be in order, so there's a chance this article might prove useful to future hurricane researchers looking for sources. Since nobody on the planet remembers any of these storms (save perhaps a few tortoises), you might be interested to read the article and live vicariously through our ancestors. Thanks for taking a look! – Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment – brief for the moment, as I'm a bit short of time. There are a couple of sentences in the lead you should look at:

  • "Although meteorological records are sparse and generally incomplete, three significant tropical cyclones affected the eastern United States, each causing some degree of damage." The sentence is unsatisfactory as it stands; it needs words such as "they indicate that" after "incomplete"
  • "However, it is impossible to confirm the origins of these events without modern reanalysis efforts." Does that mean it would be possible to confirm the origins of these events if someone used "modern reanalysis efforts", whatever these may be? If so, why has no one done so?

I will try to revisit later and take a more detailed look at this encouragingly concise article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a peek, and I look forward to additional suggestions for improvements. I've added "it is known that" to the first sentence you highlighted. After considering the reanalysis line for a while, I decided it was probably unnecessary and likely to prompt more questions than it answered... removed. –

Juliancolton | Talk 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The trouble with wording like "it is known" is that it positively invites someone to add [by whom?]. The wording I've suggested seems to meet the circumstances, and would avoid further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments A few more, mainly minor nitpicks/suggestions:

  • "lost to a Smithsonian Institution fire" – wording niggles slightly: "in a..." seems more usual in this context.
  • I would delete the unnecessary words "additionally" and "highly"
  • "compromised" is an odd choice of word, meaning damaged or destroyed. "Downed" is used later on.
  • "multiple coaster vessels wrecked along the coast" → "were wrecked".
  • "far northern" – as a single adjective, possibly hyphenate?
  • "a hurricane was felt upwind" – I'm not familiar with hurricanespeak, but "felt" seems strange here. Also: suggest you delete "also" later in the same sentence.
  • "450 ft (150 yds) long and 60 ft (20 yds) high". The parentheses should give metric equivalents, not alternative imperial measures.
  • Everyday speech, e.g. "much damage", should not be in quotes.
  • What as the Osceola?
  • "precipitation" – why not "rain"?
  • The June/July "other storms" should receive a brief mention in the lead, since you have awarded them a short section in the main article
    Well, that's where the Fragmented records... line comes in, but I can flesh that out a bit if necessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise the article is an excellent example of its genre. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources review
  • Refs 3, 6, 19, 23, 27: the linked pages do not state the source
    Completely willing to make necessary changes here, but I'm a bit confused to what you mean. The director of earth sciences (or some equally reputable title) at the university published accounts of the storm incorporating some info from David Ludlum's research, and he's listed as the |author= where appropriate. If the webpages aren't reliable enough, I could probably reduce the info to be in-line with Ludlum's book only. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 5: how does the data on the linked page support the statement cited to it?
    Replaced it with a more accessible source to be safe. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Refs 21 and 22 appear to be showing each other's source: 21 is NOAA, 22 is NWS
    Couldn't quite see the issue but I tinkered with ref 22 to try to make it more clear. They're both broadly NWS and NOAA, but I try to list whichever parent agencies are more applicable in the citation data. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've implemented most of your suggestions, and have just a few questions about some of your sourcing concerns. Replies above. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've checked the edits since I last copyedited this. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the edits! – Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Support now.

  • The second lede paragraph should probably have a specific mention of the date, rather than the generic "about a month later"
  • What does "leaving many ships in distress" mean? That they actually needed help? Were they just in the storm's path? SOS? Damaged?
  • "freshwater floodwaters" - redundant
  • When you mention " $100,000" - you should add USD, since that's the first instance of the currency. Also, that sentence mentions "downstream", but it doesn't specify a river. Why not just mention this bit when you mention the Connecticut impact?
  • " and leaving several people injured" --> "and injuring several people"
  • "swelled 20 ft (6 m), amplified to 40 ft (12 m) above normal..." - so what does "swelled" mean here? If it rose 20 feet, then how could it be 40 feet above normal? Or did it become 20 feet wider than normal? Or was it 20 feet in some areas, but upwards of 40 feet in other areas?
    The last one. It swelled 20 feet above normal, which was amplified to 40 feet above normal in tight chasms (I guess). Any suggestions on how to change that up? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This source indicates there was a hurricane in October, and has the July storm in the Lesser Antilles as the early history of the one that later hit the US. There's also another September hurricane in there.
    Cool source, thanks! That definitely ties up some loose ends. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This ref has some more estimated intensities for the three main hurricanes, FWIW.
    Hmm. I hadn't seen that link either, but I'm not sure it has anything terribly useful to add, either. The FL hurricane was "maybe" (their word, not mine) a Cat 3, which isn't very solid info. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

All in all, it's a pretty good article. The prose is great, so consider these comments mostly minor before I'd be happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting to this stuff now. Sorry for the delay. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Helpful suggestions, thanks. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm happy to support now :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this article. The first one was closed solely because not enough reviewers contributed. For evidence of that, please visit /archive1. Please comment and review, I could use as many people, as many reviews, and as much assistance as I can get.

Briarcliff Manor is a small village in the New York suburbs. It has plenty of interesting history and quite a few notable residents. The village also has a number of parks and historic buildings.

After I saw this article a few months back, I realized that it needed quite a bit of work. I created a user sandbox page and wrote a draft, which was peer reviewed by three users. I later published the article on the mainspace and submitted it as a Good Article candidate, which it passed. I'd hope you can help make the article even better - I believe there's always room for improvement.--ɱ (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

Support as per comments below. URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • What bugs me abound the lead and infobox, is the lack of refs throughout them. When you wanna make it to FA, AFAIK, you need reliable sources to back every statement you make, specially in the lead.
According to a number or rules including WP:WHYCITE, information shouldn't be cited in the lead and infobox, especially if it's repeated in the sections below with reliable sources, which it is in every case here.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright then. URDNEXT (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't understand the first sentence.
It's saying that Briarcliff is a suburban village in Westchester County, NY and is less than 30 miles north of NYC. Can you be more specific what your issue is with the sentence?--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It says: "Briarcliff Manor's original settlement was known as Whitson's Corners". I don't get the original settlement thing? What is it? I think you should rephrase that, ɱ URDNEXT (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If I reword that as "Briarcliff Manor's settlement was originally known as...", that would be okay?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the word settlement is a bit, I don't know... Weird. I think if you used an alternative it would be easier to understand. URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the area may have had other names when it was native American land or when there were a few farms in the area, but the first proper settlement was named Whitson's Corners. I think it's alright.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
So, you want to add in "it was"? That's fine with me, although it's unnecessary wording.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really. It makes the prose flow better. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Miniapolis suggested it too, and it's minor.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's generally attributed to the fact that Scarborough residents generally wanted to feel less like they were like just another part of Briarcliff; they like to be identified as residents of Scarborough.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Put this in the article and my issue is solved. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, but it's not very factual and not very well supported by reliable sources. I'll see what I can put in.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, done.--ɱ (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That should make it more clear; done.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Progressive era to present day[edit]
  • {{He bought his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890,[1] and rapidly added to his property}} I can't understand this sentence. If these were his first acres, how did he already have property there?
He didn't already have property there, the 236 acres were his first. Perhaps the wording suggests that he bought land before that? It's unlikely I can make it any clearer.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a wording conflict in this sentence. You said something then you contradicted it. You started saying he bought his first acres, which added to his property. Try this:
"He purchased his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890, and then quickly expanded his property..." URDNEXT (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The part about rapidly adding relates to the 40 parcels, not the 236 acres, but I see how you're confused. Should I reword it to be more clear?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try something.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Will be back for more! URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I replied to your comments so far. Thanks for helping out.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It was my pleasure, ɱ! Now do me a favor, and take this to FA no matter what. I'm here to help! URDNEXT (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if every paragraph needs some sort of guidebook-type introduction. It really wouldn't add anything here, doesn't seem very professional, and this is all especially true for such a short section. Also, Briarcliff Manor doesn't have a large infrastructure, because it's a small village.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
done.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, then I'd have to word it as "15 bridges, which have an estimated daily traffic volume of 204,000 vehicles", which is much more lengthy. The current text conveys the same information more concisely.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Miniapolis reworded a lot for conciseness, and perhaps she made this one a bit too concise. The oldest road in the village is Washburn Rd., and on it is the house named Century Homestead, which I talk about earlier in the article's text. I just changed the wording a bit, is that good?--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Also, just a reminder of the Sleeping Dogs thing, in case you forgot. I'll be making more comments here as I read the article more, though I'm afraid the article is already in such good shape that any criticism would be nitpicking. @ URDNEXT (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Likely won't be editing at all today, gotta restrict myself in order to actually get real-life things done...--ɱ (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@ I hope that didn't come off like blackmail. I meant to say that I'll be making comments as I find errors and things that could be improved in the article, not that I'll only make comments if you help me. Just saying this in case my previous comment came off wrong. URDNEXT (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I know you well enough by now to know that. You've always been very helpful and friendly.--ɱ (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Thanks! I'm glad I'm able to say the same about you. :) URDNEXT (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Second paragraph of historic (notable residents) is WAY too long. Maybe you should divide it into two paragraphs.
done.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you think, @? URDNEXT (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Miniapolis[edit]

My review focuses primarily on the prose.

I know, but there's nothing I feel comfortable with giving its own article. Do you have any thoughts?--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You might move some content into Briarcliff Manor-related articles, since this article (an overview) is quite long. Miniapolis 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already done that with the history section, although I don't think any other sections are long enough or would be independently notable enough to stand on their own. But please, be bold and try something, unless you'd like to suggest something.--ɱ (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
As well, longer articles have passed as FAs, as is indicated here: Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length.--ɱ (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this is your nomination; my job here is to review the article and suggest improvements ("Length" is FA criterion #4). Miniapolis 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the list, but my job is to check compliance with policy, applicable guidelines and the MOS. "Longer" doesn't equal "better". Miniapolis 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, I know, although I don't easily have a solution to this problem. Can you suggest something and I'll try to work from there? As well, criterion 4 is sufficiently vague to allow articles like Barack Obama to reach FA. It shouldn't restrict Briarcliff Manor from reaching it. On the other hand, I'd like to make the article shorter.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Another thing to note is that according to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, this article would be the 206th FA by prose size if passed. That makes it much smaller than many FAs that have already passed.--ɱ (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the lead, I think "less than 30 miles (48 km) north of New York City" is too vague; exact mileage (with conversion to km) is better.
Well, for a village that's 6.7 sq. mi., I'm not sure how you can be more precise than <30 mi.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Geographically" is implied by "shared" (no comma needed before). " ... ; it is served" is less choppy as ", and is served" (much as I love semicolons to tie short sentences :-)).

I think it is good to clarify 'geographically', especially when using a term like 'shared' that often conveys a more literal sense. I'll replace the semicolon there.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Names": "John H. Whitson's house the Crossways" needs commas after "house" and "Crossways". " ... until [it was] renamed ..." needs fixing.
Done.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I agree with the closer of the first archive that this article needs a formal peer review; IMO, it does not meet FA criteria 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length appropriate to the topic). Although the nominator and I seem to disagree on whether the article is too long, a related issue is its vaguely promotional tone (partly due, perhaps, to the large number of sources published—or commissioned—by the village). A source review is also needed. There is a numbing amount of detail in several sections, particularly "Neighborhoods", "Parks and recreation" and "Notable people", and my comments were becoming more appropriate for a PR than for an FAC (which is less about article improvement than about evaluating whether an article meets the FACR). Miniapolis 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis, for such a long article, I'd assume that there would be minor problems that we'd have to dig to find. I have already had a number of people review it and OK it. A peer review wouldn't give me that much more. You should read my further comments to Ian Rose (here), who agreed with me and was willing to allow me to immediately reopen the FA review. With regard to neutrality, I would like you to cite examples. I believe that all facts are neutral, factual, and encyclopedic. The village has not published or commissioned many of my sources; quite a number of them come from the independent Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, which is a professional and respected organization for research. With regard to a "numbing amount of detail", this is an online encyclopedia. There is no limit on the amount of detail we can go into. The only real issue with great detail is it increases page size, which can be fixed other ways. Readers and Wikipedians generally want the most detail possible in such specific articles.--ɱ (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
By far my largest source was The Changing Landscape, an independently-published and independently-written 300-page volume detailing village history and other aspects. It makes no attempts to be promotional.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Miniapolis: As well, if you read Ian Rose's talk page, it better details that he suggested a peer review not based on the article's quality, but based on the fact that it might garner the attention of more editors. He didn't fail it for any lack of quality, merely for only one review in the month-long period, and no responses for a week after that.--ɱ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments are based on the article, which is little changed (except for some apparent reverts) from when I copyedited it at your request as a userspace draft several months ago. Pinging individuals to look over an article (what you seem to consider "peer review") is very different from a formal process by disinterested editors. Due to the recent influx of paid editors on WP attempting to "spin" articles for clients, I'm sensitive to POV. I'm requesting a source review due to possible plagiarism issues, since I found verbatim copy with inadequate attribution (with a footnote, but without quotation marks) accidentally while checking a source during the copyedit. A formal peer review would address issues such as these, but I see haste in trying to get this article to FA. Miniapolis 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're overstating that paraphrasing issue, and that was an odd case very early on in this article's development. I'm surprised you don't notice more changes; I've rewritten entire sections, added many images and quite a lot of content, and done quite a bit of formatting since you last reviewed it. I would say it has dramatically changed since you last reviewed it. I am very familiar with the PR process, and I should let you know that of the many that have reviewed the article and draft, none of them had any relation to the content. Most of them made a note to tell me that they've never heard of, or have never lived remotely close to the place. All of my reviewers have been more than critical as well, and none have found this 'vague promotionalism' that you speak of.--ɱ (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisPond[edit]

Support. I've previously reviewed a draft of this article, and provided ɱ with some comments to improve it. That said, I agree that the article is quite long. I don't believe that it's too long to qualify as a featured article, and I have no readily apparent solutions to shortening it, but would certainly not be opposed to be the article being a bit shorter if other editors have suggestions to make it so. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


  • You've still got a few images fixed at small sizes - this is not a good idea for accessibility reasons
From my understanding, most images should be at the default size, although "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller" (From WP:MOS).--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The provision for smaller images applies in circumstances like flag icons, not typically actual images used in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The rule doesn't indicate that, meaning I should be able to use it to say that the David Ogilby photo shouldn't have to be 220px. There's no good reason for it to be either, it's not really important enough to be larger, looks bad and worsens the formatting when it's larger, and readers won't care to see a larger image of his portrait, rather than with images of places and landscapes, where larger sizes always help. The other small photos have similar qualities so they work better smaller.--ɱ (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, two of the smaller images are across from the infobox, so I didn't want the text in between to be squeezed even more tightly by larger images.--ɱ (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:BriarcliffRose.jpg needs to explicitly identify the copyright holder
Is that absolutely a necessity? Can't any nonfree images be uploaded which have no known copyright holder? There's almost no information on this graphic, except that the village Garden Club uses the same image, and it's been used in other media; there are a couple of framed, hand-drawn copies at the Historical Society and other residents' houses.--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
So how do we know this is an official and current logo if there's no information about it? What steps have you taken to try to identify the copyright status of the work? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's written about in a few sources (village gov. publications and BMSHS history books) as the village logo, and it's the only artwork of the Briarcliff Rose that's ever been published or circulated, so I can be certain that it hasn't been replaced by another artist's impression of the rose. I have asked the Historical Society about it, and they've told me that they don't know anything about the original author. I now feel the incentive to ask the village government and perhaps one of the more informed residents about it...--ɱ (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:JohnDavidOgilby.jpg: archival images may not have been formally published - was this one before 1923?
Commons admin Ellin Beltz marked it as PD-old because it's "clearly published and dates circa 1860". Is that sufficient?--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately not - it's clearly published now, but the tag you're using specifies that it was published before 1923. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll change it back to the most applicable license, what I should have used before although the template didn't exist yet.--ɱ (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Westchester_County_New_York_incorporated_and_unincorporated_areas_Briarcliff_Manor_highlighted.svg: what data was used to create this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Rcsprinter123 has been making these maps for a large number of municipalities. I'm not sure what data he's using. I'll ask him on his talk page, unless he answers here first.--ɱ (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Data for this map can be found here. Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Support — looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero[edit]

Will do. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I start, though, Miniapolis and ɱ, what's this about plagiarism? And what should I be looking out for specifically? Tezero (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. The relevant plagiarism discussion is now at User talk:Ɱ/Archive 2#Briarcliff Manor article. I kept the wording of some text, as I couldn't find a better or more concise way of putting it, being more technical than descriptive. That text has since been reworded and updated due to more current events, and was moved to the article History of Briarcliff Manor some time ago.--ɱ (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright. I'll keep an eye out for any more preserved wording I find, but because of the general atmosphere of honesty I won't waste too much time seeking it out. Tezero (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There's some inconsistency in the italicization of "Briarcliff Daily Voice" in the sources.
done.--ɱ (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer marking the PDFs with |format=PDF in the references.
Will do.--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Dawson, Nick (August 24, 2009). "Hudson Valley Movies". NBC Universal. Retrieved May 10, 2014." - Why not include "Focus Features" as the "work" or whatever? That's done elsewhere, such as in Nationalbridges/National Bridge Inventory.
done.--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society 2012 Harvest Wine Dinner. Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 2012." - Wait, you're citing a... dinner? Is there any way to find something someone could still access? This is like citing a link you know is dead and will never come back online.
I did use 'cite book'; this was actually the dinner journal for the evening, which had bios on the honored guests, including Mayor Vescio. It is a village historical society publication, but I'll attempt to find a better source still...--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, wasn't as hard as I thought it would be.--ɱ (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that always supposed to be that way? I thought as long as I was consistent in either linking or not linking, it would be OK.--ɱ (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's being consistent in either linking every instance or linking only the first instance, though tell me if you find any FAs that have passed with no publisher/work links. Tezero (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Then I'll do it. Shouldn't be too hard...--ɱ (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks:
  • 174: "for more than 30 years" - the source says "almost 30 years". We don't know how "almost" that is, and maybe he's moved now, so I'd recommend changing this to something like "Robert Klein, a comedian, singer and actor, had been living in Briarcliff Manor for almost 30 years as of 2013."
Huh, not sure why I put 'more than', fixed.--ɱ (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 42: Fine, but why is the African-American population increase relevant? And technically I can't find the info about "2.1 percent" in source 41, presumably used to corroborate that as 42 doesn't say it - do you have a page number or anything?
Well, in a historical demographics section it has relevance, and it's some of the only demographics change information that I've been able to find. And in a village so predominantly white, large increases in other populations certainly is noteworthy. On page 27 of ref 41, there's a demographics chart that gives the details for the described demographics changes.--ɱ (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Why only black, though? Is that the only other race that's covered? Tezero (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It also covers the previous sentence about caucasians. Other than those two races, none others have had very significant changes worth mentioning.--ɱ (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 153: good
  • 28: good; "operates the Long Hill Road water treatment plant" is almost too close but I'll give that a pass

Tezero (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 (talk · contribs), ping me when you've done the linking thing. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually thank you for the reminder, I knew there was more I was planning to do and forgot...--ɱ (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, 'work' and 'publisher' fields linked where applicable. I'll add that format=pdf thing next.--ɱ (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Tezero: Alright, I've added the PDF thing to all PDFs and I also (while I was at it) checked over all the links for dead ones, all fixed now.--ɱ (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source review passes. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Bluerasberry[edit]

This article could be promoted to featured article status now. I recommend that this promotion be done after the concerns expressed by others have been addressed. I am anticipating that no great obstacle to passing this article will be identified.

In my review, I have not verified that the information presented comes from the sources cited because I am assuming good faith that it does. I also did not consider what concepts are not presented in the article, beyond checking to see whether the expected sections were in place.

Here are some problem points. As I said, none of these are so serious as to prevent the promotion of this article to FA status.

  1. The citation style used is neat looking but I do not understand it. On the article talk page I might like to see a 1-2 sentence explanation or naming of the citation conventions applied here.
Thank you so much for your approval and review, as well as the complements provided. I'll start addressing your points. For this above concern, are you referring to Template:Rp, which I use inline with some citations? I'll put a notice about that on the article talk page, unless there's something else/more that you're referring to.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Someone made a decision not to list subsections in the table of contents. This is okay, but it is not obvious to me why this unorthodox decision was made. Perhaps note on the talk page.
I did that because otherwise the TOC would be abnormally large. The TOC limit template is designed to reduce the TOC on long/many-headed articles like this. I can add a talk page note.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Someone named "James Stillman" is mentioned. Mostly likely because of time and financial situation, this is James Stillman, but could be his son James A. Stillman, or less likely could be another James Stillman. There are no wikilinks to this person because I see there is lack of source information to make the connection. I wish that the most likely candidate could be noted at least in a footnote or some appropriate way.
A footnote would be good, I'll try that momentarily.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Someone made the editorial decision to not have red links in the articles for items which could have their own article. I assume this is because of the low likelihood of anyone making articles from the red links. Articles that I might have expected to see redlinked are Trump National Golf Club, Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Chilmark, Thomas Macy, and some others. It just seemed to me that these concepts were likely to be notable by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but it is entirely fine to keep them without links.
I can tell you for sure that if Trump, Chilmark, or the library had articles, they would be stubs. Trump is only a few years old and there's still little valuable information about the place or its predecessor clubs. Chilmark is a small residential neighborhood that up until ~50 years ago was just someone's private property. And as for the library, I was able to put nearly all notable information about it directly into this article, and there's not much here. Thomas Macy is someone I haven't researched or even read too much about, so I'm not sure whether he meets notability criteria. For all names and places that I thought might be typically red-linked, I actually decided to make articles for them instead (see Elliott Fitch Shepard and Briarcliff Lodge, among others).--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. There is a 2007 document published by the village government itself which could be considered to be a self-published source. Some bold statements are backed to this source which would be better backed by a third-party source, because the information presented is starting to cross the line from simple facts to editorial judgement to present information to create an impression. See Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Economy for example of how this source is used; a certain vision of the economy is described with bias to how a local government would like to be seen. Because I think the information in this document is likely the only published perspective of the kind of information it presents, I think it can be used as a source in the way that it is being used, but I do want to note the bias here. It is entirely fine for an article about a city of this size.
Well, I would usually put self-published sources as ones made by a person or company used in that entity's Wikipedia article. For municipalities, ownership is really by the United States. There are state and local governments, as well as chambers of commerce and other entities, but I wouldn't call a NYC government publication a self-published source if it was used in the article New York City, I would only call it self-published if it was used on the article Government of New York City. Regardless, if you point out some bold statements supported by it, I can probably find other sources for it. Also, I should note that the Comprehensive Plan isn't any sort of press release or item for the masses; it's a report mandated by the state government; a report on the services and utilities of the municipality, as well as upgrade plans.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. I do not follow the citation style used in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Parks_and_recreation. I would like to see {{fact}} tags used for statements in bullets which are not backed with any citation. Since practically all of the rest of the article is backed with good citations, I would like to see this section similarly covered.
Well, all of the information here is cited, to ref 78. I put an inline citation at the sentence before the list. That method is commonly used in other articles.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. I do not understand the caucus described in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Government. What is decided in this event?
I state that it's a "forum to determine officeholders". The caucus determines the (usually only) nominees for trustees and mayors.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Some place called the William Kingsland mansion is mentioned with no context. There should be some explanation of this place somewhere.
I mention the two notable schools that occupied it; ref 5 says it was on Route 9 in Scarborough and burned down in 1982. Should I note all of this in another explanatory note?--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some strengths of this article:

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, not overly focused on any points, and would not leave anything to be desired by a reader without specific expectations. I would expect people with expectations are likely to be impressed by this, but I am familiar with the subject matter covered as this is all new to me.
  2. I am impressed with the range of sources cited for the houses of worship section in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Arts_and_culture. I would have expected this to come from a list, but different sources have been found for most of the places presented.
  3. I am impressed with the curation of Category:Briarcliff Manor, New York.
  4. I like that the history presented in this article is complemented by History of Briarcliff Manor.
  5. The selection of photos used is fantastic

Explore Briarcliff Manor: A driving tour must be a detailed book. I am surprised it was written at all.

Thanks for all the time and thought put into this. Briarcliff Manor is one of the most covered places on Wikipedia for sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As said above, thank you for the further comments and praise. I'm very glad for such good approval of my work.--ɱ (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I added notes to the article's talk page; let me know what you think.--ɱ (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to ask, for anyone coming across this, should I make any changes to any of the images I've created? I spent countless hours on File:BriarcliffManorCompilation.png and File:BriarcliffMapFinal2.png, although there should be room for improvement and I can easily alter either of them. Any ideas?

I'm actually rather proud of the map, I spent far too long piecing it together on Gimp; totally the wrong software for map-making. But it can definitely be improved.--ɱ (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@ I think they're all perfect the way they are. URDNEXT (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
But that doesn't help me! Though, thanks, I really appreciate it.--ɱ (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The initiation of this FAC marks eight months since the first FAC nomination was created...

Sources: this link contains all the WP:PAYWALLED papers cited in the amphetamine article. The file names reflect the ref name from the source (i.e., these papers were named according to <ref name="File name">).

Ian Rose, following your advice from the last FAC, I'm pinging everyone from previous FAC nominations except Shudde, since I have a strong aversion to interacting with that editor.

@Anypodetos, Aa77zz, Hamiltonstone, The Sceptical Chymist, and John: Do any of you have any comments on the current state of the article? The previous FAC nomination received minimal reviewer input, so the coordinators suggested I seek further input from you. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose, Anypodetos, Aa77zz, Hamiltonstone, The Sceptical Chymist, John, Nikkimaria: sorry if this is the second WP:ECHO notification you're receiving; AmericanLemming mentioned the notification didn't go through so I'm trying again. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I received both notifications FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming[edit]

@AmericanLemming: I've started the 4th FAC, so it may be best to continue the remainder of your review here. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'd like to apologize for disappearing for the past four days, but I flew from Wisconsin to Houston on Wednesday, drove eight hours to Oklahoma and moved into my dorm room on Thursday, and I've been catching up on sleep the past two days. By the way, User:Seppi333, I don't think you've actually pinged me or the other editors, because I didn't get a notification. While editor apathy may have had something to do with the total lack of comments the third time around, it may also have something to do with not pinging the past reviewers correctly. To get another editor's attention, you can leave a message on their talk page, or you can use [[User:Example]], I think. For more information on the matter, see Wikipedia:Notifications, especially the explanation of why they sometimes don't work. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In other news, my semester starts on Monday, which may interfere with my ability to finish my review, but I'll do my best. You've put dozens of hours of work into this article, and I'd hate to see your efforts go unrecognized. Even if the article doesn't deserve the FA star right now, it's pretty close. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's actually closer to a couple hundred hours, especially if you include the time it took to make the annotated images. Face-wink.svg
In any event, I suppose the WP:ECHO feature didn't function since I used the feature while creating the page with several signatures. I'll go ahead and try it again... hopefully I'm not echo-spamming everyone though, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to FAC delegates: Before I review this article at FAC, I should mention what I've already looked at during my informal peer review on the article talk page. I have proof-read the lead and the "Uses", "Contraindications", and "Side effects" sections for prose quality, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the non-expert (that is, me). I've made 14 comments, all of which Seppi333 has addressed, and I've made 18 edits to the article itself. I plan to slowly but steadily work my way through the rest of the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Apologies for my weeklong absence. Hopefully I'll be able to do a section a week; I might try to do two or three over Labor Day weekend. We'll see; my classes may get in the way of that. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • “An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care.” What is “appropriate care”, exactly?
That was a language an author used to mean medical intervention at a hospital. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • “High or low blood pressure” How can a moderate overdose cause “high or low blood pressure”? I sense a note in the making.
There's several cases where it can cause an elevation or reduction in some measure, e.g., blood pressure, pulse, and blood potassium levels. It depends upon the dose and initial conditions of the user. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • When we talk about “moderate overdoses” and “extremely large overdoses”, could we give the approximate range for each?
Per WP:MEDMOS, I couldn't specify the range (this is indicated in a note in the source code), so I resorted to using those terms to give a relative magnitude for the range. The range is actually somewhat variable depending upon the user's tolerance as well, so it would've been hard to specify it in any case. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • I don’t normally cite WP:SEAOFBLUE, but it seems to apply to the “extremely large overdose” sentence. You have no less than 16 blue links in a row. Can we find some way to reduce that number? Maybe only link the most unfamiliar ones? How else am I as the reader supposed to know what to click on? All of them? Maybe split them up into more common and less common symptoms?
The longest chain after my last edit is 6 comma separated blue links in a row. Let me know if you think it needs more revision. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
As I (finally) take another look at the sentence, I'm convinced that the number of things listed in a row is as much of a problem as the fact that so many of them are linked. To make it more reader-friendly, I would suggest grouping the symptoms into related categories and then having a sentence for each category. Perhaps you could do symptoms related to the brain/nervous system, symptoms related to the circulatory/pulmonary system, and then put whatever doesn't fit in those two categories in a third sentence. Breaking the sentence down will greatly increase readability, and grouping them by organ system affected will make it more logical. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, derp. Alright, I'll work on this today and follow up here once I'm done. I agree - the approach you're suggesting would make this read better. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I've decided how to partition that section, though I had a quick question for you before going ahead with it. Do you think it would be better to keep the section as prose, or should I convert the OD symptoms list into a wikitable? If I convert it into a table, it would have a format that looks something like this:
I definitely would favor the table. It would help the reader to compare the severity of a moderate overdose and a extremely large overdose, and it would allow us to keep all the blue links without making the list of symptoms unreadable, like it is right now in prose form. The only difficulty I see is sandwiching text between the table and the giant annotated image we already have in this section; you may have to move that down a little. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Example OD table
Overdose symptoms by system
System Moderate overdose Extremely large overdose
Cardiovascular Moderate Extreme
Central nervous
Moderate Extreme
Musculoskeletal Moderate Extreme
Pulmonary Moderate Extreme
Gastrointestinal Moderate Extreme
Metabolic Moderate Extreme
Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, define metabolic acidosis, respiratory alkalosis, serotonin toxidrome, and sympathomimetic toxidrome in parentheses.
Done for three of these... I'll do the 4th once I can check the ref for more details. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Alright, one more comment on that sentence. How can the blood’s pH be too high and too low at the same time (respiratory alkalosis and metabolic acidosis, respectively)? Does this call for another note? AmericanLemming (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I need to drop by my university library to check the book ref before I clarify this.
Ok, so apparently the ref for metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis is this one (corresponds to the ref named "Acute amph toxicity" in the source code). Per this ref, the two can occur together. I'm not sure the relationship between metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis can be easily explained in non-technical terms though; the parenthetical explanation for respiratory alkalosis is also a little more technical than that term (reduced partial pressure of blood carbon dioxide) as well. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've been a little busier than I expected this past week, so I haven't worked on these issues yet. Sorry about that Face-smile.svg I'll get to this tomorrow since I've got some free time available now. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been rethinking my review of this article; perhaps instead of shooting for a section a week I could try to do a paragraph a day. That might make going through the technical sections of the article a little less overwhelming. We'll see. And since we both seem to run into busy spells here and there, this might take a while. Hopefully I can finish before this gets to the bottom of the FAC list again, though. Ian might give us some extra time if progress continues to be made, but I'd rather not count on that. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, I want to Face-smile.svg Thank you for all the hard work and effort you've put into this review so far. I really do appreciate it! Secondly, I'd prefer that you not burn out from doing this, so please go at whatever pace you're comfortable with! After all, WP:There is no deadline, and since you're being very thorough and making useful edit suggestions, I actually don't mind renominating it again if you happen to be too busy during the coming month. Take whatever time you need! Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • “Tolerance develops rapidly in amphetamine abuse, so periods of extended use require increasing doses of the drug in order to achieve the same effect.” If tolerance develops rapidly, that would imply the recreational user needs to rapidly increase the dose to achieve the same effect. Perhaps “require steeply increasing doses” would fit better here?
Just to keep the language simple/straightfoward, would you be okay with it worded this way? I think it reflects the idea you're suggesting (the "rate of change of dosage increase" increases with respect to time) if I understand it correctly, but I'd be okay with your version if you prefer it that way. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
I like your wording better than mine, actually. I think "increasingly larger" is slightly more objective and doesn't exaggerate the effect like "steeply increasing" does. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note 11 doesn’t make any sense to me. What is “addiction treatment” (isn’t that the drug you’re taking, like imipramine?) and what is “adherence to addiction treatment”? Sticking to your withdrawal dosage schedule?
I actually have no clue about the intended definition of "adherence to addiction treatment". Cochrane used that phrase and didn't define it ANYWHERE in their paper (seriously, wtf?); I was very annoyed when writing this section because of this oversight on their part. I think what that term is supposed to mean is the amount of time which a person remains in a treatment program; so, in the context of that note, I'm assuming it's supposed to mean that imipramine increases the amount of time that a person continues to take imipramine (vs a placebo) as a treatment for amphetamine. I don't see how that makes imipramine useful as a treatment for amphetamine addiction, but that's the most logical meaning I could infer from that phrase and how it was used in the paper. This is a link to the complete Cochrane review on addiction treatment, hosted on my google site/file locker. I'm completely ok with either deleting the reference to imipramine entirely or trying to explain what that term means in the note; let me know which you think would be better. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
I'd suggest explaining the term in a note. I found a nice paper that defines treatment adherence succinctly: The impact of psychiatric diagnosis on treatment adherence and duration.... You could add "(Treatment adherence is sometimes defined as 'numbers of visits per month and treatment duration')" and then cite the above journal article. It agrees with you that treatment adherence isn't a very useful metric: "First, it must be acknowledged that measures of treatment adherence and participation duration are, at best, proxy measures for clinical outcomes and program effectiveness." AmericanLemming (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "no treatment has been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of amphetamine dependence and abuse." This is a tad clunky. How about saying “there is no treatment for amphetamine dependence and abuse”?
I agree, that does seem a bit verbose. Would you be ok with it if I phrased this way - diff? It's a little longer than your version, but more direct and also less wordy than Cochrane's statement. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
Works for me. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • “increased activation of dopamine receptors and co-localized NMDA receptors in the mesolimbic pathway” I think it would be helpful to have a note mentioning that the mesolimbic pathway is one of the brain’s main dopaminergic (dopamine-transporting) pathways. Context is key for the non-expert.
I think I've clarified it with this edit, but please let me know if anything is still unclear or could use additional clarification! Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
I've kept what you've changed but added my tidbit about the mesolimbic pathway being one of the brain’s main dopaminergic (dopamine-transporting) pathways; changing "mesolimbic pathway" to "dopamine pathway connecting the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens" only made it more confusing to the non-expert (i.e., me). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • “This review also noted that magnesium ions, which inhibit NMDA receptor calcium channels, and serotonin have inhibitory effects on NMDA receptors.” So serotonin doesn’t inhibit NMDA receptor calcium channels? If it did, we could reword this sentence to make it flow a lot better.
NMDA receptors have rather esoteric pharmacology... there are numerous different binding sites for different compounds. See this commons image and caption for reference of the binding sites - I'm not sure which location serotonin binds at, though I know it doesn't directly block or "plug" the channel like magnesium does. That said, I'm completely ok with simplifying the sentence. I'll see if I can think of a less wordy and more direct way of stating it and then follow up here. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
I've gone ahead and reworded it myself. I think it's still correct, but you might want to make sure. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • “It also suggested that, based upon animal testing, pathological amphetamine use significantly reduces the level of intracellular magnesium throughout the brain” In this case, is “pathological” a synonym for “unsafe” or “heavy recreational”? If so, I’d recommend switching to one of those two terms; for a second I thought that excessive amphetamine use was caused by another disease, which didn’t seem right.
Pathological use is essentially a form of use that will result in addiction (or more generally, any form of substance-use disorder associated with amphetamine). Off the top of my head, "addiction-inducing use" or some equivalent variant of that would be a suitable replacement for that term if "pathological use" seems to jargony/technical. Let me know! Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
I like the definition in parentheses, but I've removed the Wiktionary link because it's the specific definition of "pathological" that's confusing here, not the general definition. The average reader will know that "pathological" means of or related to a disease/disease-causing, but the way it's used in this specific case that's potentially misleading. We laypeople usually think of pathogens (bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc.) when we hear the word "pathological", not illicit drugs. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • “supplemental magnesium” if this is a possibly effective treatment, why don’t we mention it with fluoxetine and imipramine above?
The main reason is that it was from a different review. WP:MED has a thing for Cochrane reviews in particular (the one that mentioned fluoxetine/imipramine) because they're extremely rigorous evidence-based systematic reviews (their reviews are arguably the highest quality medical sources). Since the magnesium review wasn't systematic (i.e., the evidence quality wasn't quite as high), I figured I should separate them. That said, the magnesium review also mentioned fluoxetine, which is why I noted that it agreed/corroborated with the Cochrane review. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • “as been shown to reduce self-administration in both humans and lab animals” meaning that they give themselves smaller doses of amphetamine/give themselves amphetamine less often? I’m not sure exactly what “self-administration” means. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Self-administration in a lab animal is essentially the of a drug by an animal that has free access to large quantities of the drug. So in this context, it means the amount of freely accessible drug that an animal in the treatment group uses is reduced compared to an animal in the control group. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)

Life keeps getting in the way of Wikipedia; I'm going to be really busy until Friday morning this week, but after that I should be able to power through a section or two. Between two essays and my Friday biochemistry test, I don't have much time to spare until the weekend. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've finished going through the prose of the Overdose section, though I do plan to go through it again, as it's hard to catch everything the first time around. One general note: I have some issues with the organization of the section, particularly with the beginning and ending and with the subheadings. See the suggestions below. I would like to log in every day and keep an eye on developments here, but in reality we're probably looking at middle to end of next week or possible next weekend; I'm kind of busy through Wednesday. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1. This section is technical enough that I think a introduction paragraph is warranted. Give the general reader the bottom line about the most effective treatments, give a simplified description of the bimolecular mechanism of addiction, ditto with psychosis, toxicity, and withdrawal. Don't make them go digging for what they're looking for, especially when some of the content is highly technical.
2. Also, I don't think the "Psychosis" and "Toxicity" sections are long enough to warrant their own level 3 headings when "Dependence and addiction" is a level 3 heading with five paragraphs and those two are half-paragraphs. I suggest either significant expansion, consolidation of the two into one level 3 heading subsection, or addition to the top of the section with the rest of the overdose symptoms.
3. Put the Overdose symptoms into a chart as we talked about above and then move the giant annotated image further down so we're not sandwiching text between images.
4. I have some more ideas for rearranging and adding/moving subsection headers, but I'll wait on those until we've decided what to do with the above three proposals. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And now for the prose comments for the rest of the section:

  • “Cognitive behavioral therapy” Could we give a brief definition in-text?
  • “Cognitive behavioral therapy is currently the most effective clinical treatment for psychostimulant addiction” So even though it’s the most effective clinical treatment, isn’t that based on extremely limited evidence? Or does the Cochrane Collaboration review from the “Pharmacological treatments” subsection only refer to drugs?
  • The last sentence in the “Behavioral treatments” paragraph is pretty much unintelligible to the general reader. While I think the whole sentence is in need of some improvement, the very last part is the worst offender: I’ll start from the beginning of the sentence and take it by parts:
    1. “aerobic exercise decreases psychostimulant self-administration” I added a definition of self-administration in the above paragraph, so this is good.
    2. “attenuates sensitization to the rewarding effects of psychostimulants” So basically you don’t feel as good when you take the drug?
    3. “reduces the reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior” So you’re less likely to relapse?
    4. induces opposite effects on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling to those induced by pathological stimulant use.” What are the “opposite effects” on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling caused be aerobic exercise, and what are the effects caused by pathological stimulant use?
  • “Current models of addiction from chronic drug use involve alterations in gene expression in certain parts of the brain.” Based on what I read later, I take it that “certain parts of the brain” really means the nucleus accumbens. How about “in certain parts of the brain, especially the nucleus accumbens”?
  • “The most important transcription factors” I would suggest adding a note explaining the role of transcription factors in gene expression.
  • “since its overexpression in the nucleus accumbens is necessary and sufficient for many of the neural adaptations seen in drug addiction” I assume you’re referencing necessary and sufficient cause here, but the fact that you neither mention the word “cause” nor link to Necessary and sufficient causes is cause for confusion. Also, why is ΔFosB considered a “necessary and sufficient cause” of these neural changes? And what are these neural adaptations, anyway? If the neural adaptations are talked about in the caption to the giant annotated image, you should add “(see caption below image to the right)” so people can read up on that if they want to.
  • “Since natural rewards induce ΔFosB just like drugs of abuse do” What does it mean that they “induce” ΔFosB? They cause the body to make more of it?
  • “and amphetamine-induced sex addictions.” Do these amphetamine-induced sex addictions occur frequently at therapeutic and/or recreational doses? How does amphetamine cause sex addictions? Does an amphetamine-induced sex addiction mean that you’re addicted to both amphetamine and sex? I’m not harping on this just because it mentions sex; I feel that the sentence as is introduces a condition/disease without really explaining it.
  • “Psychosis” subsection: I feel that the current length of this section doesn’t do the topic justice. We don’t need four full paragraphs about it, but how about 8-10 sentences instead of the current four?
  • “Toxicity” subsection: Same concern as with the Psychosis subsection. Again, I’d feel much more comfortable with the article’s comprehensiveness with 8-10 sentences here instead of three.
  • Actually, as I come to think about it, how about we expand the above two subsections slightly, delete the subsection headings, and then move them to the topic of the section where the other overdose side-effects are found?
  • “Manufacturer prescribing information does not indicate the presence” Which manufacturer? Or are we talking about US FDA prescribing regulations? I’m confused. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

@Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed your three bulleted concerns from the previous review, though I'm not entirely certain what you were referring to when you mentioned the italics; was this present in the refs, the article, or both? I made a few cuts in the article where the added stress wasn't completely necessary. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: I followed the ref formatting for the medication guide work/publisher fields as used on Bupropion, since it's the only current pharmaceutical FA and it recently went through a FAR. Most of the citations from used on amphetamine are drafted/published by a pharmaceutical company and hosted on that site. Consequently, I ended up placing the pharmaceutical company that copyrighted the medication guide in the publisher field to maintain concordance with bupropion's formatting. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Axl[edit]

  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors worldwide, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine; however, in some parts of Europe, amphetamine is more prevalent than methamphetamine." It is unclear to me why the lead section specifically draws a comparison with the prevalence of methamphetamine. This comparison is only helpful if the reader already has an idea of the usage of methamphetamine. (I certainly don't know that.) Why not mention cannabis, MDMA, or cocaine? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Axl:The lead statement was a summary of Amphetamine#History, society, and culture, specifically the statements "Amphetamine is still illegally synthesized today in clandestine labs and sold on the black market, primarily in European countries.[23] Outside Europe, the illicit market for amphetamine is much smaller than the market for methamphetamine.[23]" The comparison to meth in that section was included for two reasons: the first is the amalgamation of amphetamine and methamphetamine's society and culture sections into the history and culture of substituted amphetamines article (they have a fair amount of overlapping historical/sociocultural aspects, hence the merge). The second reason is that amphetamine, MDMA, and methamphetamine were grouped together in a very large section with detailed analysis/comparison in the World Drug Report ref, e.g., see pages 123-135(they share very similar synthesis methods and precursor compounds). Cocaine/cannabis were covered in different sections with no comparisons to amphetamine-type stimulants. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: MDMA was also included in the lead comparison a while ago, but Exercisephys removed it. The illicit production of MDMA is much less prevalent than amphetamine/methamphetamine production though (it's harder to make and the precursors are more difficult to acquire than amph/meth). I can re-add it to the lead and body if you think it's worth including. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it is helpful to the reader to include a comparison with methamphetamine and/or MDMA in the lead section. It would be far more useful to indicate how many people use amphetamine illegally. This source might be helpful. Perhaps you could provide some sort of ranking among the illicit drugs (in terms of prevalence of use)? Also, there should be an indication somewhere in the article of the amount of money (street value?) of amphetamine sold per year.
All of this information doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead section, but it certainly should be in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've added the usage statistics of "amphetamines" (amph/meth) over the past year in the EU member states. Since price for amph varies locally in the EU (6-38 euros/g), I used the total confiscated mass instead of total average street value. Diff Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you rounded 0.9% up to "roughly 1%". Otherwise, the information that you have added is helpful. However that source has more information available. It includes an estimate of price (either €6–38 or €9–23 per gram) and variation in purity. Ideally, I would like to see an estimate of total usage rather than seizure. Also, I would like to see a ranking of prevalence among the other illicit drugs.
I note that you did not remove the comparison with methamphetamine from the lead section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - Better? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! Although I am a little surprised that the source separates opiates from opioids. My understanding is that opiates are directly derived from opium, while opioids also include the synthetic/semi-synthetic drugs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Presently, it is typically prescribed as Adderall." "Presently" is often used to mean "Soon". Perhaps "Currently" would be better? Also, "it" could be inferred to mean "Benzedrine" on the basis of the preceding sentence. It may be better to spell out "pharmaceutical amphetamine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage, but, in individuals with ADHD, stimulants appear to improve brain development and nerve growth." The term "stimulants" is rather vague. Perhaps change this to "amphetamine" or "stimulants such as amphetamine"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - this is more or less how it was written a week or two ago. Lots of edits to this section recently. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't help. What are "ADHD stimulants"? These could be inferred to mean environmental factors that provoke ADHD. Actually, on second thoughts, my second suggestion would be better as "stimulant drugs such as amphetamine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - this better? Little more succinct. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine ... improves function of the right caudate nucleus and other parts of the brain involved in dopamine transmission." I am not sure that "involved in dopamine transmission" is the best phrase. This seems to imply that dopamine transmission is an aim in itself. How about "that utilize dopamine transmission". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I figured it might be simpler to just word it like this: Diff. How's that look? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 3 includes note 6, which describes the anatomical locations of dopamine & norepinephrine neurotransmission. Could this information be worked into the body of the text rather than as a note? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the only reason that note was made was because Shudde complained that it was unnecessarily technical, but he's not reviewing the article anymore. The article text is basically just a simplified version of the text in the note; the note was originally the text in the article. I can just replace the article text with the note text if you'd like. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy with that. I have invited Shudde to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Diff Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any comment from Shudde, that is fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 4: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine in such people should be avoided." I think that we may have discussed this point during a previous FAC. Does the statement imply that it is acceptable to give high doses to ADHD children without tics? Why should high doses be avoided? I am only able to view the abstract of the reference. It does not seem to examine children without tics at all. From the reference's abstract, it seems that high doses might exacerbate tic disorder, but the evidence is not that strong. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Paywalled journal source link. Link to that Cochrane review. The statements in the Cochrane review are only relevant for children with ADHD and comorbid tic disorders, so that statement isn't relevant to child ADHD without comorbidity. High dose dextroamphetamine use in that study increased the risk of exacerbated tic symptoms without additional treatment benefit compared to low doses (see page 11), hence their conclusion to avoid high doses. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I guessed that that was the intended meaning. However the current text could be inferred to mean that high doses of dextroamphetamine could be useful in people without tics. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Medical", subsection "Enhancing performance", paragraph 1: "Amphetamine and other ADHD stimulants also improve task saliency (motivation to perform a task) and increase arousal." Could you clarify the meaning of "arousal" in this context please? (Perhaps "wakefulness"?) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you incorporate this into the article please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support; haven't read through it in detail but everything looks to be in order. I suppose if I had one complaint, it'd be that the page is unclear at points as to what specifically amphetamine is, but that can be explained by the ambiguity of the term in common use as mentioned in the intro, so I don't have a problem with it. Tezero (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Madman's Drum[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The second of Lynd Ward's wordless novels, executed in uncaptioned wood engravings. It is more ambitious than the first, and perhaps less successfully executed—the relatively complicated plot seems more than the young Ward was yet able to handle. Still one of the outstanding examples of an artistic genre that bloomed far too briefly. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I can't support at the moment, as I believe that a bit more work is necessary. I see no basic problems, however. The idea of a "wordless novel" is intriguing – perhaps we should develop the concept of wordless Wikipedia articles.

  • "...and the fateful consequences it has for him and his family." Clarify whether "it" refers to the theft or to the drum itself
    • I've changed it to "and the fateful consequences of his actions for him and his family." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ward was more ambitious with this second work in the medium, and formed more nuanced characters, and a more developed and complicated plot, and explicit in his outrage at social injustice." Three "ands" in the sentence indicates the need to rephrase. Also, "was" needed before "explicit".
    • Changed to "Ward was more ambitious with this second work in the medium: the characters are more nuanced, the plot more developed and complicated, and his outrage at social injustice more explicit". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The last two sentences of the lead are connected, the second presumably being a consequence of the first. I would make this connection clearer, by combining the sentences.
  • I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "demon-faced drum". The brief description is OK in the lead, but a word of explanation in the synopsis might be helpful, e.g. a drum bearing the image of a demon.
    • Reworded to "A slave trader steals from an African he murders a drum bearing the face of a demon". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Driven insane by the loss of all who were close to him, he loses his mind..." Some redundancy of words here (we don't need "driven insane" and "loses his mind").
  • There is no need to repeat Lynd Ward's dates here, and since there is a link to the Harry Ward article, his dates should also be removed – same applies to Masereel and Nuckel, later.
(Added): I have always understood that we do not add birth-death dates when the subjects are linked, but I cannot remember the precise MOS guideline. However, if you feel these dates should be kept, MOS:DOB specifically requires that both years be given in full – which you have done in most instances but not for Lyn Ward. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mulling this over and forgot to stop mulling. I think I prefer to have the dates (I like to know just how comtemporary his comtemporaries are). I used to always use the full years until someone in an FAC told me I was supposed to shorten them. I've gone with full years for Ward, Masereel, and Nückel, and dropped them for Ward Sr. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggested reword: "Throughout his career, Ward displayed..." → "Throughout his career, the younger Ward displayed...", and later on, "He was drawn..."
  • Do we know what discipline he graduated in?
  • "he hoped explore" → "he hoped to explore"
Production and publishing history
  • You could add to this brief section details of the book's 2010 reissue by the Library of America, in a two-volume edition, details here
    • Okay, I've added this and expanded the publication history. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Style and analysis
  • "The large cast of characters are distinguished..." → "is distinguished"
  • "A wide range of emotion..." → "emotions"
  • Try to avoid repeat of "such as" in the first line of third para.
  • The sentence beginning "Ward broadens..." is overlong and complex, and could advantageously be split
  • "the "madman" in the tale" – do you mean "the 'madman' in the title"?
    • I don't understand—it's not a quote-within-quotes. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry I confused you with quotes; my intended point was simply that the word "title" seems preferable to "tale". Reading the sentence again, I see that it requires the words "one of" before "a number of", to make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Reception and legacy
  • Although you begin the section by saying that the book's 1930 release was well-received, you mostly quote two reviewers ("E.P." and Spiegelman) who are strongly critical. Can you find more material with which to redress this balance?
    • I've had little luck tracking down contemporary reviews. Walker states Madman's Drum was "published in 1930 to great acclaim", but doesn't cite a source. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Henry Murray used two images in his Thematic Apperception Test..." – two images from what?
  • "uneven homework" → "uneven artwork", surely, or better: "artwork of uneven quality".
    • Yikes! Fixed. One of those things a spellcecker will never find for you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have corrected the JSTOR link to the E.P. review in Burlington's Magazine. In this review the writer makes the point that whereas the reader of God's Man was assisted by captions, the illustrations in Madman's Drum are entirely without guidance which, he says, makes the story difficult if not impossible to follow. This is, I think, a point worth making in your article.
    • What he means by "occasional caption by way of a Pole star" was the chapter titles—the images themselves are uncaptioned. I've rewritten as "A reviewer for The Burlington Magazine in 1931 judged the book a failed experiment, finding the artwork uneven and the narrative hard to follow without even chapter titles as textual guidance that Gods' Man had." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The "legacy" element – the second and third sentences of the first paragraph – is weak. Berona's 2003 article has more to say about the failure of these early wordless novels to establish a genre, and this material should be incorporated. Also, I think this whole section needs reorganizing. The second paragraph, suitably enhanced, should follow the first sentence of the first paragraph, while the "legacy" material, again properly enhanced, should form the second paragraph.
    • I've expanded and reworded as you've suggested, and added a couple of other things about the gradual decline in sales of Ward's books, and how few wordless novelists produced more than a single book. What do you think of it now? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It still seems to me that the three paragraphs provide a reception → legacy → reception sequence. Recommned that you reverse the order of second and third paragraphs, as a more logical order. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the article is well on the way, I think it needs a little more work before it is promotable. I will look at it again in the light of your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking at this, and actually checking out my sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Support subject to sources and image clearance. I have one outstanding point on the final section (see above) which you may wish to consider. Otherwise, good responses to my issues. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Images are fair use but appear to be appropriately justified, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Had quibbles around the time of nomination and raised through edit summaries. I see that they are resolved now, and post Brian's review would be happy to see this promoted. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an important order of mammals, the rodents. Three of us (assisted by DrChrissy and others) have been beavering away at it for months and have recently brought it successfully through GAN. We think rodents are fascinating animals and hope you think that too, so please don't rat on us but start burrowing in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have two drive-by comments, I suppose. The first is somewhat facetious. In the "Standard classification" subsection lemmings aren't listed under the family "Cricetidae", and I think they should be (notice my username?) Anyway, I guess that doesn't really matter. On a more serious note, the "Interactions with humans" section only talks about people eating them, keeping them as pets, and using them as lab rats (literally, in some cases). There's absolutely nothing about their depiction in popular culture. Now, you don't need a whole five paragraphs about that (unless you want to put that much effort in), but the pinniped article has a nice one-paragraph summary under the Human relations section; I'd use that as a model. There is no Rodents in popular culture article, at least as far as I can tell, but just include it in a hatnote; there's nothing wrong with red links in FAs. Other than that, the article appears to be quite comprehensive. Good work! AmericanLemming (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the lemmings under Cricetidae (I hope you weren't offended!) and we will work on a paragraph or two on "Rodents in popular culture". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold on. I decided against having a popular culture section because of how large and diverse the group is and such a section is better suited for individual groups like mice or beaver. Unlike bat or shark, there is no cultural "rodent". Pinniped is also not a good comparison as they are far less diverse and culture pretty much knows them all as "seals" (the walrus being the only species with a significant cultural identity). It would be almost like having a "Mammals in popular culture" section for Mammal or "Carnivorians in popular culture" section for Carnivora. Another FA article Primate also doesn't have a popular culture section and I believe for the same reason. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your point. I was wondering whether at some point this issue had already been discussed. Well, I can't really argue with the reasons you've given for not having such a section. Also, searching "rodents in popular culture" in Google, Amazon, and JSTOR doesn't bring up anything of substance, so it would be difficult to write a paragraph on the subject. I did find "Rats-Friends or Foes" in The Journal of Popular Culture, but that would fit better in the rat article than this one. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We have made a start on drafting a short section so might as well complete it. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. That's just the sort of thing I was looking for: short and to the point. A few comments: In the first paragraph on rats, two important literary examples are missing: "The Pit and the Pendulum" by famed Gothic writer Edgar Allen Poe (rats swarm over the protagonist and try to eat him) and the children's classic Charlotte's Web by E.B. White (the gluttonous rat Templeton plays an important role in the plot.) In the second paragraph, we would be remiss not to mention that Mickey Mouse is Disney's mascot to this very day. Third, a good literary example of rats being portrayed as evil and mice being portrayed as good can be found in the late Brian Jacques' Redwall series of books (see the Characters section. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The section is all about rats and mice and not rodents. I've asked Cwmhiraeth to remove it. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you position on the matter; if rats and mice are the most commonly represented rodents in popular culture, then it makes sense to focus on them. But in the case we do end up removing it, I'd suggest copying and pasting it to the lead section of the List of fictional rodents article. That way Cwmhiraeth's work doesn't go to waste and the aforementioned article gets a decent lead section (right now it's one sentence long). AmericanLemming (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I moved the text to the fictional rodents article. I hope this slight disagreement will not affect your support for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I think you have some very valid reasons for your position, and I respect that. As far as supporting or opposing, I don't think I've done a thorough enough review of the article to give a recommendation either way. And with school in session, I don't think I'll have time to burrow any further into the article, unfortunately. Anyway, with lemmings now mentioned in the article, my work here is done. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Emotions" section has 2 paragraphs (even though they both are addressing the same point). The first paragraph describes the theory and methodology of a cognitive test. This seems to stray away from the topic of rodents - it is a paragraph about an experiment, not about rodents. The second paragraph is about the result of how a some rats did on the test. This is only about rats - is the experiment saying this result is applicable to rodents in general or just rats (that paragraph may be better suited for the rats article)? maclean (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment. I think I introduced this section. The cognitive bias test is reasonably difficult to understand in principle and practice, and so I described it in a little detail. On reflection, this might be a little long - I was hoping to avoid the reader having to flick to another article to understand this section. The study in rats is extremely interesting because the high frequency ultrasonic call is one of the few contenders of indicating positive welfare that we are currently aware of (think of all the other indicators - they indicate negative welfare, or neutrality). Current knowledge as that only the rat emits this ultrasonic call so it is specific to rats, however, that does not mean that other rodents do not experience the same emotion/s. Remember the rat is widely used as a laboratory animal for reasons of convenience in these studies. Who knows, there might be "Happy Hamsters", "Merry Mice" and "Cheerful Chinchillas" ...but they have yet to be tested.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead could do with a little massaging.....
continuously growing incisors - hyphen here?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
About forty percent of all species of mammal are rodents - I don't like the singular/plural juxtaposition here...I'd go with "About forty percent of all mammal species are rodents"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
''The most diversified mammalian clade, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including human-made environments. - singular/plural subject
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well known rodents include mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters, but rabbits, hares and pikas are no longer considered to be rodents. - two "rodents' in the one sentence
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite a few "rodents" in para 2 of lead - if we can pare down any of these with clever use of passive etc. that'd be good....
Reduced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
sometimes even breaching oceans - odd verb choice here....better one would be prudent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"'Rodents interact with humans in various ways, and have been put to use as food, in clothing, as pets and as laboratory animals in research. - the facts themselves illustrate the diversity - I'd chop the bolded bit
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd link pelage, ultraviolet light. enamel, dentine, tundra, hydrological
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
''Rodents are capable of gnawing though even the toughest husks, pods and seed shells - needs a cite...also some elaboration on which species are strongest etc.
Thank you for your comments. I removed the uncited sentence, there's more about feeding later in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
First sentence of Social behavior uncited.
First part of Social behavior section a series of standalone sentences - can we congeal these into 1-2 paragraphs?
Similarly, degus, another social, burrowing rodent - plural/singular disagreement
"'Using olfaction, rodents are able to recognize close relatives. - any reason why we're not saying "by (their) smell"? as it is simpler?
This allows them to express nepotism - "express nepotism" sounds weird to me..."show nepotism"?
Several different mating systems exist among rodents. - I'd remove this as redundant.
Rodents have advanced cognitive abilities and can perform a wide range of tasks. - I think the first part of this sentence is subjective to the point of being pointless - "advanced" compared with a monotreme? probably - to a human? no. Without some context, no meaning is lost by changing to "Rodents can perform a wide range of cognitive tasks."
I have dealt with these suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks comprehensive overall and flows well now. I will do some source checking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing looks ok spot-checkwise for top of article - need to sleep now - more tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok - I wonder how we can tweak para 1 of Olfactory subsection - way it's written (The chemicals involved are the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and several urinary proteins, which are detected and interpreted by two olfactory bulbs. ) makes it sound like MHC is secreted, which is not true. Source says "MHC-associated odors in mice are produced through a complex molecular mixture of volatile metabolites bound and released by urinary proteins ", so I think we need a bit of a reword. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
err, a bit better but I think needs a bit of tweaking still. I was very tired when I wrote this last night. I feel better today and will have another look a little later when I get a stretch of time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, I tweaked it like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
there are 168 species in 126 genera that "deserve conservation attention" - better to be written without quotes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll sit on a tentative support - prose is clear, refs I checked aligned with sources and many more are pretty obvious. One tricky one is now ironed out...and it looks comprehensive and I can't see anything else to fix. But these large articles are tricksy beasts so would not be surprised if something crops up. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I agree that long articles are more difficult to assess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Bat detectors are often used by pet owners for this purpose." - source?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "In the eusocial mole rats, a single female monopolizes mating from at least three males." - source?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't include quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
I don't understand this. Can you explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As you know, ellipsis is used to indicate that material from a source has been omitted when quoting. However, it is understood that you cannot possibly be quoting the entire source in this article. For that reason, having ellipses at the beginning or end of a quote, as you do for example in "...for the first time", is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'm with you. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FN5: link goes to a different site than is cited
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Several of the refs have stray punctuation, particularly the .". string
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Formatting of FN111 does not match similar refs; same with FN113
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publishers
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date formatting
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FN116: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the "Source review". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

    • As I promised a while back, I'm here to help. I'd like for us to work through the images first, before I start playing with the prose. This may be a lengthy process.
  • Check captions for semi-colons where colons would work better (or, for the lead image, a comma that might be better replaced by a colon)
Done Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Source link for File:House mouse.jpg (part of your collage) is dead. Otherwise all images in that collage look fine. The collage would look better in the article as a JPG, however.
Can't find a new source link. I suppose we had better redo the collage with a different image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The link works for me. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's because we fixed it already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Same as the kangaroo rat below. You might want to do a backwards Google search. Will save you the trouble of making a new collage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
added on Commons and in article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Replaced image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I missed that he uploaded the image himself. You can reinsert the NYC rat if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:American Beaver with dam.JPG - You need to create the original author as well, not just the person who made a crop. Otherwise this violates the terms of the upload. I'd link to the source image as well, rather than forcing people to search for it.
Done (on Commons) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We editors discussed this earlier, and preferred this image for its "town" appearance, illustrating rodent societies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing else on Commons (for that species). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
source corrected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Still not directing me to that image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed not, the original page seems to have been deleted. If you think this an issue we can look for another image. Done that anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you try a search-by-image on Google, limited to .gov domains? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't quite gone that far! Result is [14]: but it contains the new image that's now in the article, not the original one. The original survives in a few places such as [15]. If you'd like it put back, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer the lighting on File:Kangaroo-rat.jpg better (much easier on the eyes, looks more professional). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
added English description on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Castoroides Knight.jpg] - The book was published in 2012. How do we know that this painting was published (not completed) in 1904?
removed image from table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
removed image from table; we could possibly use it elsewhere in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
removed image from table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Rodent species pie chart.png - Got anything more recent? This is going on ten years old, and I'm concerned that paleontological discoveries / discoveries of new extant species may have changed the balance somewhat.
removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Lightened the image; Grönvold died in 1940 so it's indeed PD-70. Volumes of book were published between 1921 and 1928: if the latter, US PD is uncertain so removing for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Image has been removed from Lightmatter. Have replaced image with a user's (Rama's) own work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Potatoes feeding damage HC1.JPG - Fine
    • Now that that's done... I highly recommend removing some images. Personally, I'd take out all the extinct species from the table (you don't have illustrations for all examples, after all) and the bird drawing. Perhaps one or two more. This will both save bandwidth for people on slow connections, allow the page to load faster, and make it look less cramped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
removed extinct species image column from table, and the bird drawing; awaiting further edits from team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your image review Crisco. Now that we have dealt with most of your points, I'll have a go at replacing the mouse image in the collage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • See my point above re: the mouse image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
many copies (prob. from WP) but none on Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When all else fails, and I have a once-valid URL, I like to try's Wayback Machine ( And... *drum roll* ta dah! You simply need to add the link to the file page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

    • rōdere - Should be italicized as it is both a non-English word and a word as a word (WP:WORDSASWORDS)
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Antarctica - is this overlinking? (x2)
links removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • , but rabbits, hares and pikas are now considered to be in a separate order, Lagomorpha - reason for this being included is not immediately apparent. No indication in text that some people think rabbits et. al are rodents
said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
said and linked whiskers directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • re-ingests the food from its anus - You mean it ingests pellets, right? It doesn't commit autoanilingus, one would assume (and pass the brain bleach, please). Might want to rework this.
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Because the incisors do not stop growing, the animal must continue to wear them down so that they do not grow far enough to reach or even pierce the skull. - Repetition of "growing"
sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • like the blade of a chisel - iron and pounded on by a hammer? Something less idiomatic would be preferable
added "shaped", which is the intended meaning here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This lets rodents suck in their cheeks or lips to shield their mouths and throats from wood shavings or other inedible material, and discard this from the side of the mouth. - "This" last referred to the diastemata, suggesting that the second "this" is also diastemata. I'd add "waste" after the second "this".
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Rodents have also thrived in human-created environments such as agricultural and urban areas. - I wouldn't challenge this, and I don't know anyone who would, but considering your experiences at Tree I think you might agree that a citation would be useful (just to be safe)
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Prairie dogs can also lead to regional and local biodiversity loss, increased seed depredation and the establishment and spread of invasive shrubs. - A sentence like this should be contrasted with the positive roles mentioned before
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It also practices coprophagy, eating its own fecal pellets. - See, this is handled much better. Also, if you defined the term on the first mention, you wouldn't have to define it here.
rm definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So roughly what percent of rodents are carnivorous or omnivorous?
Unsure about this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Duplicate links: caviomorphs, fur, naked mole rat
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's half of the text. Rest tomorrow. Very nice read. Simple enough for a literary major to understand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the young emerge in front of their mother." - In front of their mother ... this is ambiguous. Could be "from the mother's front parts", "in their mother's presence", or "with their mother facing them". Or do you mean the direction in which the young move after being birthed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • alien - I know what you mean, but I can also imagine someone deliberately misreading this as "extraterrestrial". Perhaps another term?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • which causes stress, thus causing the young to abort. - can we avoid the double "cause" in close succession?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • we know a great deal about their cognitive capacities. - passive voice would be better, to avoid the human subject. "much is known about their cognitive capacities", for instance
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • some of them were handled whereas others were tickled by the handlers - I feel "handled" could be better expressed. Tickling is a form of handling, IMO
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "joy" - what's with the quotes?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Similar tests on birds have been inconclusive. - at most worth a footnote. Not really pertinent to rodents
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The author has a M.S. and Ph.D. in Animal Behavior and has studied rats in depth. The site backs up its information with citations from the scientific literature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if we could have a peer reviewed article or something instead of this. Please keep an eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • and up to ten re-colonizations of Eurasia. - does this mean Rodentia is thought to have first evolved in Eurasia?
Well, in Laurasia, the precursor of Eurasia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then why "re-colonization"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • such as the giant beavers, Castoroides, and a giant dormouse, Leithia, attained great size. - yes, we get that they were big. No need to say it three times in a single sentence. Also, you use "Giant" too much in this paragraph. I count three instances
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ceara and Sierra Leone Rises - links?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The hares, rabbits and pikas (order Lagomorpha) have continuously growing incisors and were at one time included in the order. - since this is the first mention in the article body (as opposed to the lead), I'd link. Also, consider starting the sentence with "As with rodents," to remind people why this is important
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • based on an attempt (Wu et al., 2012) - perhaps "based on a 2012 attempt by Wu et al."
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While these disagreements have been going on - "have continued" or "remain unsolved", perhaps? Have going on feels hopelessly non-formal
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Monophyly versus polyphyly - unless you develop this section even further, I recommend merging it with above. I have little love for one-paragraph sections
This would not fit in a section titled "Standard classification" and I think it is best left in its own subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider linking species upon first mention (brown rat, black rat, etc.). You may need to review the entire article for this, as you name drop a lot of species
Done all I could manage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • they were fed walnuts, chestnuts, and acorns for fattening. - might want to rework, as your subject was "Romans", and I don't think the Romans were being fattened
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Among indigenous Amazonians, when large mammals are scarce, - I should think that there are no large mammals living in the indigenous Amazonians. "In the Amazon," perhaps
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Rodents make convenient pets where space is limited, and the different types exhibit differing qualities as pets - Pets - pets. Can we avoid this?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some rodent species are agricultural pests, - feels like this can be expanded. I mean, what we have there is two sentences. That's barely a paragraph
Added a whole lot more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Disease too... we all know about the plague. What about other diseases? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Added a whole lot more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice to see a bit of variety. You may be asked to trim one or two, but this looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks like the only thing missing is making sure the species are linked on first mention, but that's not enough for me to hold back the bold "s". Good work on such a wide topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • BTW, I took the liberty of switching the PNG for a JPG like I said above. Compare the two: png, jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the image is considerably clearer. Thank you for doing that and for your support. (I'll do some more linking shortly.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dank's comments[edit]

  • "nose - these": en-dash
  • "fore-limbs": My dictionaries show this as forelimbs
  • "Rodents exhibit a wide range of types of social behavior ranging from the first known mammalian caste system of the naked mole rat,[21] the extensive "town" of the colonial prairie dog,[22] through family groups to the independent, solitary life of the edible dormouse.": Missing and
seems not to need an "and" anywhere?
  • "co-operation": The hyphen is rare in AmEng.
  • I was reading this too fast to offer support, but I'm comfortable saying that it's lively and readable and not jargony, considering the sometimes technical subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike Christie's comments[edit]

I'll add comments below as I go through the article. It's likely to take me at least a day or two to get through this. First pass done. Since this is a gigantic subject, and I have no background in biology or zoology, I started by looking at the structure of the other FAs at the same level of generality -- bird, primate, and (arguably) ant. Here's what I found for the first few sections:

  • Bird:
    • Evolution and classification
    • Distribution
    • Anatomy and physiology
  • Primate
    • Historical and modern terminology
    • Classification of living primates
    • Evolutionary history
    • Anatomy, physiology and morphology
  • Ant
    • Etymology
    • Taxonomy and evolution
    • Distribution and diversity
    • Morphology
  • Rodent
    • Characteristics
    • Distribution and habitat
    • Behavior and life history
    • Classification and evolution

Some comments about structure first.

  • The other three FAs, with some slight variation, start with terminology and evolutionary history. Physical characteristics come later. Can you comment on why you chose this particular organization for this article? This article's layout doesn't seem as logical to me as the others.
We did the same with Crocodilia and starfish. We feel that with the way the section is structured, it would be unattractive as a leading section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look at those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A closely related point is that the characteristics section reads rather choppily to me, and I think it's because it shouldn't be the first section in the body. Paraphrasing the sequence of sentences: "They're mostly small. Some are very big, like the capybara. They're generally squat. Forelimbs and hindlimbs are such and such; the elbow is like this; they're plantigrade. They not good at running, but some are. Some can hop fast. Semi-aquatic species are like this. Most have tails, some of which are prehensile or vestigial. Flying squirrels can glide." This doesn't feel definitional, or like an introduction or an overview; it feels like an assemblage of facts. I don't think this is the right section to start the article with. It goes straight into details about characteristics with giving any context: nothing about evolutionary history or taxonomic placement. I think it would read much less choppily if it were further down the article. As I said, I have little or no background in biology, and I don't spend time on the bio articles, so this is the opinion of non-expert reader, for whatever that's worth.
It seems choppy because rodents are a diverse group of animals. We can mention common characteristics but there are also exceptions and variations which fit better when mentioned right after the generalizations. The only true defining rodent characteristic is the incisors. LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Elsewhere in the article you cite Stefoff's The Rodent Order; what I can see of the "Physical Features" section seems more coherently written than the "Characteristics" section of this article. (One thing I think would help, by the way, is to start the characteristics section with the dentition -- why leave it to a subsection, when it's the defining characteristic? Making that definitive general statement up top would make any choppiness in the remaining section less of a concern.)
Here's how the first five paragraphs of Stefoff's physical features paragraphs are organized:
  • Dentition - incisors
  • Dentition - molars
  • Paws, claws, and toes
  • Senses - vision
  • Senses - hearing and smell
To me this is far easier to read and more logically organized than the first paragraph in this article. A separate point is that Stefoff makes some broad statements about anatomy that you don't include -- the opposable toe, the typical types of claws. Any reason not to include that material? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the caption for the rodent tooth system, I don't think it's necessary to credit Leche.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The most defining feature of the rodents is their teeth": why "most"? I'm also not sure what "defining feature" means here; in a context like this I would expect it to mean something like "the characteristic that definitively identifies an animal as being in Rodenta", but that doesn't really work with "most". It's also not stated what's defining about them -- the next sentence says they continue to grow, but doesn't say that's the definitional feature, though I suspect that's the intention.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I gather that the distribution map in the infobox shows only original distribution, since there are now rodents on New Zealand. I think this should be stated in the caption (or you could colour NZ differently to show the increased range).
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Compare the first paragraph of the Feeding section in this article with the first main paragraph of the equivalent section in the bird article. The paragraph in the bird article begins with a high level breakdown of bird feeding strategies, then gives a list of specific strategies with examples of birds that use them. The rodent article starts with a general statement too, but then starts listing individual rodents with specific strategies. I think this is the wrong way to present this information; general statements with specific examples is better than specific rodents which are not treated as examples of strategies -- of the four listed in that paragraph, only the field vole is described in terms of a strategy: "a typical herbivorous rodent". The reader isn't given a clear statement of the relative significance of the other three examples. For comparison, the social behavior section in rodent is better at this, though I think it could be tweaked a bit. It starts with a description of the range of social behaviours, gives a couple of examples, then the next paragraph again described a general set of behaviours and follows with examples.
I am not sure I agree with you. I have rephrased the general sentences on feeding slightly. I think 95% of rodents are probably herbivores, a range of the feeding behaviours of which are then illustrated. I'm not sure about the omnivores, but a certain chipmunk was said to have some insect wings among its stomach contents, but whether this is the result of omnivory or the accidental swallowing of insects with plant matter is unclear. As for carnivores, I think there are very few. The teeth are adapted for gnawing after all. So I think it is inappropriate to deal with rodents in a similar way to birds as the latter have a much wider range of feeding strategies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I found it hard to believe there's not much on omnivory or carnivory of rodents, so I looked around. I found this on JSTOR, which seems pretty unambiguous. It's from 1970, so perhaps you'll tell me it's superseded, but if not could this or something similar be used to supply a little more detail? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Good source! I have now added a paragraph on omnivory and a bit more on carnivory. These practices seem more widespread than I had previously thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the table in the auditory section, the mouse higher limit is given as 91,00; I assume this should be 91,000 but didn't want to change it without checking.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The visual section spends most of its time on UV sensitivity. Is there more that could be said about their visual sense? I know this is within the section on communication, but there is no separate physiology/anatomy section (should there be?).
Senses are touched upon in "Characteristics". LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest linking "conspecific" (in the noun usage, at least) to something explanatory on first occurrence.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "In obligate monogamy, both parents care for the offspring and play an important part in their survival. This occurs in California mice, oldfield mice, Malagasy giant rats and beavers." When you give a list worded in this way, the reader can't tell whether these four species are the only examples or just some of the species in which the behaviour occurs. I would make it clear in this case and any similar sentences.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Females play an active role in choosing their mate": I can't tell if this is a general statement about all rodents, or just about the species with flexible mating systems. If the former, I think it should start a paragraph and the general nature of the statement should be clearer.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You have "altricial" twice and "altrical" twice; the latter does seem to be a valid alternative spelling but I would suggest being consistent.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The resulting stress causes the young to abort": suggest "fetuses" for "young".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am doubtful about the value of including the study demonstrating cognitive bias; in a survey article, like this, wouldn't it be better to rely on secondary sources? It's a great result to quote but without secondary source commentary I don't know how to tell if it is regarded as a noteworthy (or even a valid) result by the academic community.
This study was December 2012 so difficult to find much in secondary sources. I have rewritten the paragraph to cut down on the amount of detail included. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded it again; please revert if you prefer the original wording. One reason I rephrased it was that in an article like this we should be making general statements about rats more than giving specific examples of experiments, so I think it's better to say "rats trained to do X are more likely to ..." than "Researchers trained animals to do X .... it was found that they were more likely to ...". I also checked other sources on cognitive bias in rats, and found enough to convince me that this isn't controversial, so I'm striking this. One minor suggestion, not necessary for FAC, is that it might be a good idea to choose a study cited by a secondary source; I found a couple of books with titles like Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour that cited rat studies on cognitive bias, so this shouldn't be hard to do. The benefit is that there is (presumably) less risk that a study will be found to have flaws if it is being cited in this way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this in detail but I doubt that we should cite data based on a single primary paper examining a single species in the overview article for an entire order. Ucucha (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
There are several studies on cognitive bias in rats. Being a scientist, I am a little perplexed as to why a secondary source would be considered more robust than the primary source. If a news-paper reporter interviews me about my science, there are almost always flaws in their articles, and they are simply not trained to analyse whether the science is good or bad. I also believe scientists should get recognition for their work, rather than reporters for writing about other people's work. So, should I provide other primary sources, or is it wikipedia policy to use secondary sources in preference. I have discussed previously the problem with us knowing a considerable amount about laboratory rats and mice but considerably less about other rodents, but only because they have not been tested. This makes it difficult to know whether we can generalise to other rodents, or whether it is species-specific information. I do not know the answer to this problem...__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
In scientific articles, an appropriate secondary source is generally not a newspaper article, but a survey work by a scientist. For example, in the article on radiocarbon dating, which I've been working on recently, a suitable secondary source is Taylor's Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective; it reviews and summarizes the history of the discipline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - that makes sense.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have similar doubts about the metacognition discussion -- fascinating, but hard to be sure what weight it should receive. The fact that countervailing studies are cited is good but then that diminishes the interest of the original result.
This could be removed altogether but that seems a pity to me. The study was on rats because of their convenience for use in research, but the behaviours may well be replicated in other groups of rodents. In this case follow-up research is available whereas it was not in the cognitive bias example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I read through it again, and I think it's OK. One minor suggestion before I strike this: change "Rats may have the capacity" to "A 2007 study suggested that rats may have the capacity". The next sentence starts "The researchers" without previously indicating that we were talking about a study. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a FAC issue, but I really think you should give the possible weight of Leithia. Saying "enormous dormouse" and not saying how enormous is just cruel to the reader and guarantees they're going to click away from the article.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You give "caviomorphs" in parentheses after the first use of "hystricognaths"; I'd move it to the first use.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Struck; I meant it was after the second use, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "old endemics" and "new endemics" need glossing, either inline or in a footnote.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The reference to Australian mammals says they're all Murinae; the linked article says Muridae. Can you just confirm that you meant Murinae here?
Murinae is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You give the derivation of "rodent" in the lead; I think it could be cut from there, but that's a matter of opinion, not something I think is necessary for FAC. However, you cite it as "rōdere" there, but as "rodere" further down in the "Standard classification" section. If the accent is necessary (I don't usually see accents on Latin, so I'm doubtful) then it should be in both places.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "the Ceará and Sierra Leone rises in the Atlantic": I think this is worth a couple of redlinks, per WP:REDYES: perhaps "the Ceará and Sierra Leone rises in the Atlantic"?
Removed as unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You use "mya" once and "million years ago" several times; I think you should either introduce the abbreviation before using it, or (probably better, given that it's only used once) just replace it with "million years ago".
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the picture of the East African springhare should be removed; I imagine there aren't many good pictures of the Anomaluromorpha available, but this is quite poor quality and I don't think it's suitable for a featured article.
Please reconsider. We have to get the images we have available. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
FA criteria don't specifically see images need to be high quality, nor that they should be present to illustrate everything that can be illustrated. I wouldn't oppose over this; I just think it's a mistake to use a poor image when you could leave it out. However, I also noticed there's a better spring hare picture embedded in the rodent collage at the top -- could you use that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't look right to use the same picture again. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm striking this because it's not an FA issue; I do think it's a mistake to use a poor quality image though. It would be better simply to have no image of this suborder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Typically in a high level article written in summary style many of the sections should have hatnotes pointing to the more detailed articles. That isn't the case here. If there are no suitable sub-articles, of course you can't link to them; can you just confirm that there are none? Evolution, classification, behaviour, list articles?
That's right. There are no sub-articles on these. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The naked mole rat is the only known mammal that is poikilothermic and also does not produce the neurotransmitter substance P": it's the only mammal for which both statements are simultaneously true? Or the only one which is poikilothermic, and also the only one that does not produce substance P?
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
OK; I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "while in South America losses have reached ninety percent": surely this needs some qualification such as "while in South America some local harvests have reported losses of ninety percent"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

First pass through done. My main concern is whether the sequence of sections is right; most of the points I raise are minor, and I'm sure will be fixed quickly. This is an excellent article; I will have a read through the Crocodilia and starfish and see if that changes my mind about the structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We are working to resolve the issues you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I'm out of time tonight but will try to return to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think one of the problems we are encountering is that while we might know a great deal about 2 rodents in particular, the rat and the mouse, we know less about the other species. Added to this is the huge diversity of rodents beyond the rat and mouse. There seem to be exceptions to every "characteristics of rodents" making this difficult to write about. There is even one exception to the rodent dentition from which the name Rodent is derived! In my own speciality of animal behaviour and physiology, we know many facts about rats and mice, but whether we can generalise these to all rodents or only some, is difficult to judge. For example, mice and rats have UV visual sensitivity. I doubt very much this has been tested in beavers and capybara, but I would not be surprised if they had this capacity. However, rats appear to have meta-cognition, and although this has almost certainly not been tested in beaver and capybara, I would be staggered if they had this ability. I guess we need to keep editing but discuss these and try to distinguish differences that are interesting and robust. For example, the meta-cognition study is contested (perhaps reducing robustness) but I believe it is the only non-primate to have this ability (increasing its least in my humble opinion).__DrChrissy (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You've convinced me that the metacognition study is worth keeping. I've modified my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions In the last 24 hours, an editor has deleted both newly added text and long-established text on gliding by rodents. This was done with no justification by the editor and in my opinion, this deletion and the continuing disruptive behaviour of this editor jeopardises the assessment of this article for FA progression.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the edits I think you're referring to, the editor in question is one of the nominators of this FAC, and I think those edits were in response to a comment of mine further up, though I didn't specifically ask for the removal of that material. I'll wait to review that change till I see agreement that it's a consensus edit.
Also, you mention a single species that doesn't conform to the standard rodent dentition -- I assume you mean Paucidentomys? Does the existing description of rodents as characterized by a single pair of continuously growing incisors include Paucidentomys? I'm not clear if "single pair" refers to one tooth in each jaw, or one pair in each jaw. On reflection I would have thought the former, in which case this is accurate for Paucidentomys, but surely not the best way to describe most rodents, which have two pairs of incisors? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I was referring to Paucidentomys. Because this animal was only discovered in 2012, It could not have been included in the definition of a Rodent according to dentition which must have been used for many years. I have just re-read the reference and this states there is one incisor per quadrant. This means the animal has two incisors on the top and 2 on the bottom; 4 teeth in total. This appears to be corroborated by a plate in the article. If I am correct in this, it means the Paucidentomys article is a little mis-leading by implying it has only 2 teeth in total.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Mike. I would just like to say that I agree with your concern about the "choppiness" of the article. My own style to avoid this is generally to have more sub-headings, but I know some editors disagree with this approach. Yesterday, I spent some time looking at other animal Order pages and below is my "wishlist" if the article were to be re-structured today. Maybe we can take some of these on-board, although I realise wholesale changes are not what is expected at this stage.
Distinguishing features
Anatomy, physiology and morphology
..Sexual dimorphism
Habitats and distribution
..Reproduction and life history
..Mating strategies
..Social organisation
..Diet, feeding and hunting
..As prey
In human culture

__DrChrissy (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to rearranging sections, creating subsections or changing the names of sections if appropriate, DrChrissy's suggestions imply that we should have sections such as "sexual dimorphism", "locomotion" and "fables" which we currently do not. The first of these could be created by making a subsection within "characteristics", but not the others which would require much extra work. I think it is a bit late in this candidacy to start making substantial reorganizations to the article on this scale. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for considering these - and I understand about the (bad) timing regarding major restructuring. In my own opinion, in dealing with such extensive knowledge at say the Order level of taxonomy, Wikipedia would benefit from having a template for guidance in creating such articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Interposing regarding Paucidentomys—I don't think it has any bearing on the standard morphological characterization of rodents. The important synapomorphy is a single retained, evergrowing pair of upper and lower incisors, and Paucidentomys still has that character, even though it has lost all molars. Ucucha (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ucucha's comments[edit]

Oppose. It is difficult to write large overview articles like this and I appreciate the effort that has gone into it, but I think there are some issues of organization and coverage in the article, and I also found some factual errors.

  • For example, the article does not discuss several important adaptive strategies followed by rodents, such as semiaquaticity in e.g. Crossomys and Oryzomys, kangaroo-like form in e.g. Dipodomys, Jaculus, and Notomys, and fossoreality in mole rats and gophers.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The description of evolutionary history is very abbreviated and does not mention rodent's closest relatives (lagomorphs and some extinct groups) or important extinct groups such as ischyromyids and eomyids.
I have started expanding this. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The list of extinct rodents is dominated by Pleistocene giant species for some reason and hardly seems representative.
Removed this table as being too arbitrary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The section on conservation does not mention any of the rodents that have gone extinct through human actions, such as Caribbean giant hutias and rice rats.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the section on behavior (especially communication) seems overly long on balance, and I'm not sure the "Monophyly versus polyphyly" debate even merits a mention—this was briefly a topic of discussion in the 1990s, based on bad molecular analyses, but I don't think anyone has supported rodent polyphyly for over a decade.
Removed the subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ucucha: Thank you for your comments. What are the factual errors you mention? We can work on the article with a view to dealing with the issues you raise above and below and I am happy to do so, but your "oppose" seems rather definite and makes me think we should just give up on this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
With "factual errors", I was mostly referring to the first two points below. There were a few other things I noticed that I haven't mentioned yet (e.g., the sentence "During the Eocene, rodents began to diversify; some fossil species were very large compared to modern rodents, including the giant beavers, Castoroides, and an enormous dormouse, Leithia, which is estimated to have weighed up to 113 kg (250 lb)." strongly and incorrectly implies that Castoroides and Leithia are from the Eocene). I plan to read the article more thoroughly and come up with more feedback. Ucucha (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have rearranged this paragraph so as not to give a false impression. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A few other small points (I haven't read everything in detail):

  • "The Sciuromorpha, or squirrel-like rodents, have a very simple jaw muscle that extends onto the snout in front of the eye. The Myomorpha, or mouse-like rodents, have jaw muscles that anchor on the side of the nose – these are the most efficient chewers amongst the rodents. The Caviomorpha, or cavy-like rodents, have very large cheekbones and muscles that anchor to the side of the face." This refers to morphological patterns known as "sciuromorphous", "myomorphous", and "hystricomorphous", which do not correspond perfectly with the names of suborders like Sciuromorpha. (For example, glirids are not sciuromorphous even though they are in Sciuromorpha.)
You may well be right about this, but the present content of the article follows the source. Can you cite a source to back up what you say and then I could amend the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Brandt (1855) was the first to propose dividing the Simplicidentata (rodents and their closest extinct relatives) into three suborders, Sciuromorpha, Hystricomorpha and Myomorpha, based on the development of certain muscles in the jaw." The name Simplicidentata is currently used for a taxon that includes rodents and a few extinct relatives, but this is not what the word meant in Brandt's day. At the time, lagomorphs were still considered rodents, and the order was divided into Duplicidentata (lagomorphs, with two pairs of upper incisors) and Simplicidentata (rodents as defined now, with one pair). I'm not sure this subtlety has to be discussed in the article (you can avoid by just not mentioning the term Simplicidentata), although it would be interesting to discuss the historical classification of lagomorphs as rodents.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The phylogenetic tree in the "Standard classification" section has an overabundance of dipodids. That is in agreement with the source, but that study probably overrepresented dipodids because the first author got his PhD on dipodids (I remember attending his defense :) ) and so had a lot of them available. This article should give a good representation of the relationships among rodent families, not blindly reproduce a single source.
I have reduced the number of dipodids mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "the rodent families themselves have remained relatively stable," "Relatively" can mean a lot of things, but there are several areas where disagreements over the family-level classification of rodents have persisted until recently (e.g., muroids, dipodoids, echimyids and related groups).
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ucucha (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • One more thing: I would avoid referring to "rats" or "mice" anywhere. Both are imprecise terms that can refer to dozens of species; we should specify the species (likely the house mouse, brown rat, or black rat) wherever possible. Ucucha (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As a kind of outgrowth of my never-ending tinkering with galley (and early modern naval history), I came across the "archipelago frigates" of Fredrik Henrik af Chapman. This is one of the four hybrid types that he designed for the archipelago fleet in the late 18th century, and the most numerous. It was an interesting experiment that was along the lines of the galleass, xebec and oared "galley frigates" like the Charles Galley.

It's a narrow topic, and the article is fairly short. As far as I know, it should represent pretty much all the encyclopedic aspects of the ship type that is actually available in published sources.

Peter Isotalo 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Swedish_galley_(1749).jpg: as I understand it, freedom of panorama laws in Sweden do not cover works exhibited indoors
  • File:Fredrik_Henrik_af_Chapman-Pasch_portrait.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chebec_genois_de_14_canons_en_1826.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Should be fixed now (along with alt descriptions that I always forget to add before nominations).[16] The photo of the galley model is PD since the model is contemporary with the original galley design (noted in the image description). I don't recall if there was an exact date in the museum, but it was made in 18th century or possibly the early 19th century. These models were often made by (or for) the shipwright to be displayed for the monarch or navy officials to impress them into securíng the desired building contracts. Or merely as a demonstration.
    • What should I do about the dead link, though? It's still the original source. Peter Isotalo 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Have you tried That can help restore the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, that. No, I tried that before, I believe. It's not archived. But in what way does it matter? Is it to establish the source of the file itself or the information about the painting? Peter Isotalo 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria:: Anything else that needs fixing in the image department? Peter Isotalo 08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


I was approached by Peter who asked if I could take a look at the article and maybe tweak the language. I didn't want to mess with the article itself so I copied it to my sandbox-2. I made my suggestions in stages and left comments in the edit summaries. Use some, none or all of it, or let me know if I should make the changes myself, I'm not familiar with FAC's. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copyedit, W.carter (or just "carter"?). I implemented most, but not all of it, myself. The sandbox was a pretty good idea, btw.
You're free to merely suggest improvements at FACs (as you have already done), but you can also either oppose or support a candidate by applying the featured article criteria. If you wish to oppose, just specify in what area the article is lacking. The only requirement is that the criticism needs to be "actionable", ei a concrete lack of something rather than "language isn't good enough" or "not enough refs". Giving one or two examples is usually enough.
Peter Isotalo 08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments. The article is in excellent shape. A couple of comments below.

  • I initially didn't understand the link to Tavastia in the first sentence -- I thought perhaps "hemmema" was a dialect word from that area. Perhaps the explanation can be made clearer. Also the English name for the link given is different in the body -- "Tavastland" instead of "Tavastia".
  • "Swedish prolific naval architect" is not the most natural adjective sequence. I'd suggest "Prolific Swedish naval architect", or "The prolific Swedish naval architect", or "Fredrik Henrik af Chapman, the prolific Swedish naval architect".
  • "the rower-soldiers; numerous of them succumbed to illness": how about "the rower-soldiers, many of whom succumbed to illness"?
  • "After Russia defeated Sweden": I assume this refers to the 1741-1743 war, and would suggest making this "After Russia defeated Sweden in 1743" to make this clearer to the reader.
  • "The galleys' firepower was inadequate, they were inefficient in terms of manpower, had poor protection for the crew, and were not particularly seaworthy." These should be parallel constructions, so I would either add "they" to the third and fourth reasons in the list, or rephrase. Part of the problem is that the subject of the first clause is "firepower", so there can be no parallelism to that.
  • 'The turuma and the hemmema vessel types best fit the description of "archipelago frigate"': suggest 'Of the new designs, the turuma and the hemmema vessel types best fit the description of "archipelago frigate"'
  • "They also had some of the heaviest broadsides, even compared with the high seas navy": I don't think this is quite right, though I think I know what you mean. The problem is that "heaviest" needs to be used in comparison with some group, but using "even" indicates an additional comparison, so it's not clear what group of guns these were the heaviest of.
  • "The later hemmemas were also considerably larger ...": I don't think you need "also" here.
  • "The Swedish-built hemmemas were all of the same specifications": how about "The Swedish hemmemas were all built to the same specifications"?
  • "Lost at First Battle of Svensksund 1789": suggest "Lost to Russia at First Battle of Svensksund 1789" for those of us who would otherwise have to click on the link.
  • "Fell into Russian hands at the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808 and the name rendered as Gel'gomar in Russian": I think this would be more natural as "Fell into Russian hands at the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808; the name was changed to Gel'gomar in Russian".
  • You give the length of Oden as 32 m. in the table but c. 33 m. in the article; which is it? (I changed "c.33" to "c. 33" per MOS, which expects a space after "c.".)
  • It took me a few seconds to understand that the dashes in the tables are essentially dittos; they indicate that the value is the same as in the cell above. I initially thought they meant that the value was not available. Given that there are only four types, would it be better to define the four types in a short table and then replace the size, oars, and armament columns with a "type" column? For the Russian ships even this wouldn't be necessary -- you could just specify the information at the top of the table.
  • I don't think you need any of the three links in the "See also" section. There's already a link to galley in the body of the article; the word "gunboat" appears in the article and could be linked there; and I don't think rowing is worth linking.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC) I see some editing has been done so I've struck the items that have been taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Thanks for striking. Sorry for not specifying the tinkering. The solution for condensing the tables seems very workable. I just need to figure out the exact formatting. Peter Isotalo 08:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

2002 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an active typhoon season that featured a lot of damaging storms. I've had it done for a while, but I decided to give it a go and try for FAC, since I believe it represents some of the WPTC's best work, and it's the best coverage on typhoons in 2002. Hope you like it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to invite User:Jason Rees to co-nom this FAC, as I might be busy over the next few weeks with music stuff. He indicated interest off-wiki that he'd be able to help out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep for my own personal reason that Hink is aware off i am willing to help out with this articles FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: While i would still like to see this article succeed in its quest for FA Status, I have become rather busy in real life and am currently only able to use Wiki at weekends and at odd moments during the week. As a result i am withdrawing from being a co-nominater of this article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the color scheme used in the headers of the infobox do not comply with WP:CONTRAST. Namely, the link colors #0645AD (unvisited) and #0B0080 (visited) against the dark red (ff6060,ff8f20) and dark blue (5ebaff) colors used do not comply according to this calculator. Since the link is to very useful information explaining the scale used, removing it isn't an option, so some sort of color adjustment needs to be made. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As this is a project-wide issue, one that cannot be addressed solely with this article, and as you are currently in a discussion about it with the rest of the project, I believe it is inactionable at the moment, and that it should not affect the progress of the FAC. When the concern is addressed by the project as a whole, it will also be fixed in this article. If you have any comments pertaining to this article specifically, I'd be happy to address them though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all. I'm saying that there is a discussion going on to discuss this, since it affects the entire project, so it is inactionable on here. Once the issue is addressed, it will be fixed through the entire project, including this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise, there FA promotion request could be "inactionable" if the article fails to comply with the MoS. I suggest helping to move along the adoption of a compliant color scheme. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but none of the 189 FA/FL's have had issues with this before, so I think it's a little unfair to single out this specific FAC, when it deals with every article in the entire project. After all, just two weeks ago, another season article in particular passed FAC with no problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't answer about any previous ones. It's a shame this particular MOS has been missed, but its understandable. But what I really cannot understand is why you keep repeating yourself, trying to convince people here to overlook this standard just because it was never brought up before. Now you know about it and it is an issue here and now. I don't know how others will comment, but I will not give this article a free pass on a several-years-old MoS style guideline, especially when the guideline is one designed to assist people with impairments. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking you to give it a free pass, or to overlook. I'm just saying that I am incapable of addressing your concerns with this one single article when the changes affect the entire Wikiproject. There is a discussion on this with you involved elsewhere, so I don't see a point continuing to harp on it on here. I just ask that you assume good faith that when a consensus is reached, that the change will be put into effect project wide, including this article. If you have anything on this article in particular (and not other articles) that you have qualms about, I'd be happy to address them, though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have more confidence in what you're saying if, as the nominator here, you said something like "I recognize this is a problem and am working hard to address this concern". Lacking that, it feels like you're ask for a free pass on this article. Perhaps you should withdraw until this article (and the WikiProject) adheres to the MoS guideline? -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite the contrary. As some editors believe that how we have it currently does indeed adhere to the MoS guideline, I feel no need to withdraw it, since I believe the article does pass all of the FA criteria. Your point is noted, but your edits are getting borderline disruptive. I feel there is no need for more discussion about this specific issue here, considering how lengthy the discussion is at WT:WPTC. But, once again, if you have anything specific about this article (and not the tropical cyclone project in general that you seem to have some beef with) that you have concerns about, I'd be happy to address them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly ignorant about color issues, but I know that ACCESS lists two standards, AA and AAA. Just eyeballing it, the contrast doesn't seem to be a problem, so I'm wondering if that's the issue, if the contrast meets the AA standard but not the AAA standard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you have normal vision, "eyeballing it" probably won't indicate to you the problem, but WP:CONTRAST links to tools that assist. Since this page uses a total of only about 7 distinct colors for storm strength, we should be able to get AAA, or very close to it. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I got an answer to this question here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Added comment: the tracking images used on this page also fail to comply with WP:COLOR (""Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"). These maps use only colored circles to differentiate the intensities. The intensity should instead be conveyed by different symbols for each, and a key should be present on the images to aid readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Such as the season summary map at the top of the page? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the individual ones for each storm. -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, this is impracticable at the resolutions the track maps are made, and introduces internationalization issues. Additionally, the track maps are not the only way the data in the track maps is presented; the prose of the article indicates when and where the storms reached important intensity thresholds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeating what I said there: Like almost all our guideline pages, ACCESS has been written assuming that people will follow the instructions: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So, guideline pages typically don't try to anticipate every exception. They expect editors to figure out not to add numbers that would be too small to see to an image, and not to remove the single-pixel hues that are there on the theory that someone might not see them. I applaud anyone who's working on ACCESS issues, but this isn't the right call to make. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer Titoxd's suggestion that this change is "impracticable" or that it would produce illegible results, I've put together a mockup of one way to make the indicators more accessible without impacting the current functionality. To the side is a track map from this article, and my mock-up - can you tell the difference at first glance? At thumbnail resolutions, you can see that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and I am sure with some work on the actual track generation program, the impact would be even less. The noticeable improvement, of course, is seen when the image is expanded to higher resolutions, where the addition of numbers (which correlate to the Saffir-Simpson scale used).
    Dank above makes the case that there can be "occasional exceptions" to the guidelines, and that is true, but in this case, the large number of track maps means this is far more than "occasional" and the fact that the change can be accomplished without a negative impact means this should not be an exception. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This change actually makes the data points darker, decreasing contrast with the background, and makes the image less legible for all users. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I was talking about the season summary map at the top of the page. I'm not taking a position on the ACCESS issue per se ... I completely agree that it's a good thing to make images as widely accessible as possible, and of course, that tends to happen gradually as Wikipedia evolves, so I have no problem that you're raising the issue. There are people who are smarter about ACCESS than I am, so I generally just ask around when I don't know what to do. But for the map I was talking about, in the size it's going to appear to most readers (and readers don't click, most of the time), what you want would literally mean changes to individual pixels (on most screens) ... and that gets us to a different issue, the feasibility of what you're asking for. It may help to try to bring more people into the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add a note to the FA coordinators. It appears that User:Netoholic has a bit of a quarrel with the tropical cyclone project, resulting in requests for admin action, unilateral edits to heavily used templates, and numerous discussions questioning the user's edits, with regards to hurricane articles. I hope that is taken into consideration with any future action in this FAC, and that instead of having this discussion on four different pages (or more?), that this can continue without too much disruption and instead be focused on an article that I am very proud of, and one I believe should be featured! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning the well immediately after I changed my vote to oppose? Yes, I do hope FA coordinators all this into consideration. Is this how we treat people that bring legitimate MoS concerns up? -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, you added your formal oppose after I implored that discussion would continue not on this page, for the umpteenth time, due to the many discussions elsewhere. I have argued that perhaps it is not a legitimate MoS concern (based on the comments by User:Dank), and since it is debatable (and indeed is being debated elsewhere), that perhaps this is not the best place for the discussion, especially in light that it has not been a problem in previous FA's, and it is not something only limited to this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Translation: "Well, yes I poisoned the well, but only because I couldn't convince you using other means." Really? -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out to the FA coordinators that Netoholic is engaging in a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOPping, with no less than three discussions (including this one) all dealing with the same issue. The emerging consensus is the same one since 2012: avoid the use of links in tables that use colored backgrounds. More eyeballs from more editors would be appreciated, but the best place for that discussion is not in the middle of a FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is to bring the WP:COLOR MoS failing of this article to the attention of the FA process... which I am sure wants to know any MoS problems related to a FAC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Colors.3F.3F.3F is a general discussion area - the section was not started by me, so I don't see how you can accuse me of forumshopping. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style.2FAccessibility.23Color compliance is a discussion about the technical implementation of the fix - you yourself replied in all three threads with nearly the same comments in all three places. If I was really forumshopping, I'd be putting this on a Village Pump thread or Jimbo's talk page or other widely scattered places.
Now, can one of the FAC clerks please close off this section devoted to nothing less than an series of attacks on my motivations for opposing, so that relevant discussion about this FAC in particular can continue? -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the above discussion is pretty much a rehash of discussions I've voiced an opinion on in other locales, I'll be skipping down here to list my qualms with this article so far. I have not covered the "Storms" section yet, but I have read through the other sections thus far – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The 2002 Pacific typhoon season was an active, - an active... needs a subject here.
  • Overall, there were 37 tropical depressions, of which 26 became named storms; of those, there were 15 typhoons - Since you're using the official tally for named storms and typhoons, I think the count for tropical depressions should be changed since I believe that includes the unofficial PAGASA tropical depression Dagul.
  • Specified that some were unofficial. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • During most of the year, sea surface temperatures were above normal near the equator for most of the year - Saying "most of the year" again is quite redundant
  • floods left about $1.8 million (P94.2 million PHP) - Substitute the peso symbol in for the 'P'
  • The last paragraph of the seasonal summary section feels incomplete. It begins in January and talks about storms up until September when the summary just ends abruptly with a little factoid on Kammuri.
  • Added mentions of Higos and Pongsona, how they were farther east than the barrage of China landfalls through September. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "mid-latitude trough" in the Caloy section could use a helpful link to an appropriate article
  • Well, it'd basically just link to trough, which is already linked elsewhere in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Within the North-western Pacific Ocean, both the JMA and PAGASA assign names to tropical cyclones that develop in the Western Pacific - Western or North-western, but not both.
  • They became Typhoon Ele and Typhoon Huko keeping their original name and "C" suffix. - You could probably indicate that the JTWC uses these suffixes here as well since there's no guidance on what the JTWC does in regards to naming in the Storm names section
  • The names Matmo, Nuri, and Noul were chosen to replaced
  • Some rows in the Storm Effects section are given inline citations, others are not.
  • Well, the refs there cite the damage or deaths. No cite was added for each of the storms, since that's just rehashed from above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The majority of the notes (having to do with currencies being converted to US$ using Oanda) can be simplified by using just one broad note that covers for all of them.
  • I personally think it's easier having them separate, just to clarify the original currency right next to the abbreviated versions (such as "₱522 million PHP"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

-- TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! It's good to get specific comments on the article instead of an abstract argument. I hope I addressed your concerns here properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the dates of the storms be taken from the JMA best track. There are a few that use JTWC dates or that are incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no issues with this being considered a Featured Article.--12george1 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. But I think is better using "Renminbi" to replace "Chinese yuan" at Note 4.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments. I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two -- not sure how much time I'll have tonight. For the record, the debate above about accessibility of the colours used for the storm track dots doesn't incline me to oppose. I'm OK with waiting for a consensus from the project and I'll assume that it will be implemented in good faith when it happens. I do have a different comment about the colours further below, however.

  • First, thanks for the review! As far as the debate, it's largely settled now, as we removed the WP:ACCESS issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not correct. The Track map color dots are still a major issue. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I've now completed a pass through; comments are below -- quite a few, but they're either minor or they're questions.
  • "In March, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon on record in the month": from the body of the article it's apparent that this means that no super typhoon had ever occurred in March before this, but I wasn't clear when I read it that that was the intention. How about "Two months later, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon ever to be recorded in March"?
  • Yea, I spent a lot of time tweaking with that sentence. Yours works well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I see from a look at some of the other typhoon season articles that the paragraph in the lead starting "The scope of this article ..." is common to most or all of them. I've no objection to some such text being repeated in each season article (though it would be nice to avoid the slightly self-referential "this article"), but I don't see any reason for this to be in the lead -- surely this belongs in the body, in an introductory section on scope, or background? It doesn't seem to meet the goal of a lead: summarizing the body of the article. The part of this paragraph that defines the scope of this article could be added to the first sentence (e.g. "The 2002 Pacific typhoon season, covering Pacific storms that form north of the equator and west of the International Date Line, was an active one ..."); the rest of the paragraph is probably not strictly necessary at all if you do that, but I think it would be OK in either a scope or background section, or as definitional phrases attached to the "See also" lines. And you also made me curious: what about storms that form south of the equator? What are they called, and what articles would cover those?
  • I omitted the bit about "this article" by saying "The Western Pacific basin covers the Pacific Ocean...". I still think it's important to say just where the boundaries are. It's an introductory section that helps clarify what's going on. I don't want to front load the information too much. Mostly likely, those who visit the article will know where the storms are, but for those who don't, I want a proper clarification on all of the agencies and what's going on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    OK on including all of that; I agree the reader needs the information. But why is it in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Mostly I thought it was the most logical location. The first paragraph dealt with the season activity as a whole, the second dealt with individual storms, and the third clarified just what the season was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I read through again and I think it's OK as it stands; I'm not used to seeing leads do this but I can't really see anything wrong with it. I think the last sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section, though; see the next point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Storms that form to the south of the basin/Equator are called tropical cyclones and are covered by the Australian and South Pacific cyclone articles.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I've ever reviewed a storm FAC before, which is amazing considering how long you and I have both been doing this, so this might be a question you've answered on other FACs: surely the colour key for the dots on the storm track should be somewhere in the article, and not only in the picture when you click through to it?
  • Interesting that's never come up! And it's especially interesting considering we had a discussion about this on the template for Storm path to change the text. I used that text and put it at the end of the 3rd lead paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    That's helpful, but can we say something about the colours too? E.g. "... blue indicates a tropical depression, and intensifying colours of yellow through red correspond to the [[Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale] from 1 to 5"? As above, I think this should not be in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think that's a bit too much detail and self referential to the article. The text now matches what's used in the storm path template, used on individual storm articles, which was the result of this discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think the sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section; it describes something that is not really visible in the composite picture, and is directly relevant to the Storms section, where it would look fine as an introductory sentence before the first storm. I think you could add some form of the sentence I suggested about colours, too: as the discussion you linked to points out, the scale doesn't make any colour recommendations, so the reader can't understand what is presented without a click. I don't think that's ideal; and it's fixable with half a sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    OK, I think that would work. And as far as my talk page message, usually I just use the colons, so thanks for the heads up on how to do it differently :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think that's a definite help to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which was risen further" is a bit ugly. The problem is that "which" refers to the forecast. How about "The group increased their forecast twice more; in April to 29.6 storms, and then in early May to 30.5 storms"?
  • "The group was largely accurate in its predictions": you've just used "the group" as the subject of the previous sentence. How about "These predictions proved to be largely accurate"?
  • "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses four times a day, beginning at 0000 UTC and continuing every six hours": "continuing" doesn't seem right. It would be more technically correct as something like "at 0000 UTC and every six hours thereafter", though that's just as inelegant. How about "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses at six hour intervals each day, beginning at 0000 UTC"?
  • I still want to emphasize there being four a day more than the every six hours, so I changed it to...
  • This also address the below comment, I believe. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Two consecutive sentences begin with "The JMA issued forecasts".
  • "The agency began with several meteorologists leaving": might be better as "Several meteorologists left the agency near the start of the year".
  • "slightly below the normal of 26.7": I think this should be either "slightly below the norm of 26.7" or "slightly below the normal value [or number] of 26.7".
  • "Of the storms, 15 became typhoons, which was a slightly higher than normal proportion of storms becoming typhoons": a bit repetitive, with "storms ... became typhoons" quickly followed by "storms becoming typhoons". How about "15 of these 26 storms became typhoons -- a slightly higher proportion than normal".
  • I largely did that, but changed the beginning so not to violate MOSDATE and starting a sentence with a date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I had to scroll up and down in the article a bit to figure out what Agaton and Basyang meant, in parentheses after the names of the storms. I did recall the earlier statement that "This can result in the same storm having two names", which helped. Perhaps that statement could be expanded to something like "This can result in the same storm having two names; in these cases both storm names are given below, with the PAGASA name in parentheses".
  • Thanks, added. This is very useful, as this is the first time a typhoon season article is up for FAC, so I appreciate comments like these especially. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The storm influenced heavy rainfall": this would mean that there was already heavy rainfall, which the storm then influenced. I'm sure the repetitive nature of these storm description means that you reach for the thesaurus, but I think just "caused" would be fine here.
  • "Caused" is so boring :P I changed it to "induced", hehe. Thank you! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "forcing the other 15 crew members to be rescued": needs to be rephrased; the storm put them in a position where they needed to be rescued, but it didn't force their rescue.
  • Reworded to - When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Damage totaled $700 million, which was one of the five costliest storms on Guam": needs rephrasing; $700 million wasn't one of the costliest storms.
  • Changed "which was" to "making it". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You have "considered the system as" and "considering the system as" in the article; I don't think "as" can be used in this way with "consider". You could maybe drop the "as", or perhaps use a verb that does take as, such as "regarded", though I think the intended meaning is what the agencies classified the storm as, not what they regarded it as.
  • "quickly dissipating by the next day": "quickly" and "the next day" are redundant here; I'd cut "quickly".
  • "Every month had tropical activity, with most storms forming from June through August": per the chart, this doesn't appear to be right -- July through October seems more like it.
  • Actually, check the table under "Seasonal summary and predictions". It shows that there was a depression in every month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, but I count three forming in June, eight in July, seven in August, five in September, and five in October. Shouldn't it say "July through October"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ooh, yea, good point. I changed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to tell by looking at one of the storm track graphics which end represents the start of the track? It would seem natural that there should be a way.
  • That is one of the limitations of the track map program, which doesn't have that sort of feature. However, when read with the text, the start and end should be obvious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm going to strike this because I agree the text makes it clear, but I did notice that File:Changmi_2002_track.png, for example, has triangles that indicate direction. Another track map I looked at had this just for the very first marker, which might be a cleaner approach -- you only need one arrow to indicate direction. Any reason this couldn't be done for all the track maps? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's because Changmi became extratropical toward the end (basically a different type of storm), which is why the arrow changed. As for why it couldn't be done for all track maps, the track maps use the data from the warning centers, but that data doesn't indicate direction. It would be a lot of extra work to add a symbol that really isn't visible unless you click on the image. It's technically doable, but that's a lot of extra work for fairly minimal payoff, IMO. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    It does, and as I say above I'm not going to oppose, but I think it would be a nice touch, if ever an OCD member of the Wikiproject wants to edit several thousand track maps to add this .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the image File:2002_Pacific_typhoon_season_summary.jpg, one of the storm tracks appears to disappear off the eastern edge of the map -- shouldn't it be included?
    • Yes and no - the track that "disapears of the map" is acctully only just entering the WPAC from the Eastern Pacific region.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You use "the PAGASA" a couple of times, though it's mostly just "PAGASA"; I assume these are errors and should be fixed.
  • Given that " ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee" just redirects to the WMO, I think you should list the 14 members in a footnote; there appears to be no other way for a reader to figure out who they are or what the geographic area is (or what "ESCAP" stands for).
  • Changed the link to WMO, and added the 14 members in a footnote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Tropical Cyclones are named from the following lists by ..." why is "Cyclones" capitalized? And this makes it sound like a general statement about all years, whereas this list is specific to 2002, isn't it?
  • No idea how "Cyclones" got capitalized, but I fixed that. And true, I removed the "following lists" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Japan Meteorological Agency's RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center ..." The RSMCs are mentioned a few sentences later and linked then; I think they should be linked on first appearance, and since it would be good to spell it out on first appearance, why not abbreviate JMA, as the article generally does to this point, and make it "The JMA's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) ..."?
  • Hmm, no real reason. I shortened it to JMA and added the RSMC link. Regarding the below, I adjusted where I put RSMC and Typhoon Center so they weren't right next to each other. It is correct that the JMA has "center" while RSMC has "centre". I think it's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also re the above: I can't quite parse "... Tokyo — Typhoon Center", for a couple of reasons. First, the spelling of "Center" is inconsistent with the spelling in RSMC -- is that correct? Second, making it "RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center" makes it sound like that's the official title of the centre, which isn't how you refer to it later in this section -- there you just say "the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre in Tokyo".
  • I don't think you need to mention twice that PAGASA has a list of ten spare names; I would remove the first mention.
  • Listing the unused names in grey makes them almost invisibly different. This is not an accessibility issue, since you do have "(unused)" next to them, but I can't imagine anyone finding the colour a quicker visual check than the parenthesis.
    I brought it up to the project whether they should be greyed or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    OK; struck since it's not an issue for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Each of the 14 nations or territories submitted 10 names, which are used in alphabetical order, by the English name of the country." I'm not clear what this means -- each of the 14 nations does this each year, and this is the 2002 list? That can't be right; there should be 140 names. So maybe it means that there are 140 names, and they are cycled through so that the only repeat every four or five years? And the order within the 140 is alphabetical, by submitting country? It doesn't seem to be alphabetical by storm within that, if so.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - li