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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.



Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about singer-songwriter Courtney Love of the band Hole, and I believe it has reached Featured Article status; it is well rounded, heavily researched and documented, and I have worked tirelessly at prose and other issues for several years now, and feel that it has come full circle at this point. It appropriately discusses all facets of her career and projects, and has been carefully constructed/edited to evenly cover her duplicitous public career, image, and personal life. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Yikes! Please see WP:LEADCITE—citations in the lead are discouraged except in special cases. The density of citations especially is a reader-unfriendly eyesore—I recommend reading WP:BUNDLE. Not against the "rules", but&nbso;... ugh! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Didier Drogba[edit]

Nominator(s): Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an Ivorian professional footballer who is at the moment a free agent. 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.

I believe this article should be featured because it provides very detailed information on his entire career, especially at Chelsea and his career with the Ivory Coast national team. His personal life is also well documented. Content is well-referenced and concise, and as of this revision I did not find any disambiguation links. I think this well deserves to be a featured article. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the poet and writer Dylan Thomas. Thomas was well known in Britain and the United States during his lifetime and he is still recognized today. Notable works include "And death shall have no dominion" and "Do not go gentle into that good night" and in the US 'A Child's Christmas in Wales'. A lot of hard work went into getting the article to GA standard and a (limited) peer review was conducted earlier this year. Although time maybe against us I would like to get this to FA standard in the hope of making the front page on 27 October, the centenary of Thomas' birth. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker[edit]

Nominator(s): Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to submit the article on the murder of Ross Parker for FA review. It concerns a murder carried out shortly after the September 11th attacks, in Peterborough, England and the article gets a reasonable amount of interest, even today. Although its my first submission here, I am an experienced editor, I've helped review other submissions and I'm fully aware of the standards required. The article is stable, achieved "Good Article" status over two years ago and there have been considerable improvements and expansion since then so hopefully it isn't too far off. I've put a lot of work into it and have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the case as a result, therefore i should be able to address most queries reasonably swiftly.. Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims.—Whoa! It's one thing to say that anti-white violence may be downplayed in the media, but I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims, however a particular editorialist may choose to spin it. An issue so serious is not helped with this kind of hyperbole, and hyperbole has no place in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims". Well, Wikipedia's article on racism includes the "prejudice plus power" view of racism in its lede as one definition. Combining that definition with the view of some (seemingly including Easton) that even a murdered 5 foot 5, working-class child who works in a bar and has a weak leg was automatically "powerful" simply because of his skin colour, then its clear that white victims could be excluded. Easton's piece is controversial and seems somewhat flawed and I don't really wish to support him, but it is one of the more prominent examinations of the wider aspects of the case, and the idea that event was so significant that it caused a concept to be redefined in some people's minds is extremely important (even if we don't agree with all the arguments used to come to such a conclusion or their assertion that the whole of society subscribed to such a view in the first place). I think the text makes it clear that this argument is only a suggestion/argument and not necessarily a fact, so there's no problem there though I'm open to suggestions for further tweaks. It would be fantastic to include some analysis of Easton's argument in the body of the article, certainly others have tried to do this in the past, but we don't really have any reliable sources for doing so in the context of the Parker case and therefore I was wary about including material that was too unrelated to the subject at hand. Again, if people have ideas for critiquing of Easton's comments I'd be more than happy to hear them. Anyway, many thanks for being the first to comment on this FAC discussion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Health issues in American football[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As the title suggests, this article is an overview of the health issues that come with playing American football. This article was a collaboration between me and ChrisPond, and just recently passed through a good article review by Wizardman with virtually no issues found. This is a broad overview of the topic - in particular, the article covers injuries (both common and uncommon) that come with playing the sport, the effects these injuries have on athletes post-career, and the measures taken to try and reduce injuries throughout the history of the sport. Standard media sources like newspapers and magazines are used, but many of the sources here are published works that come from reputed scientific/medical journals. In addition to images, there are also several informative tables that are used to demonstrate the statistics of injury in the sport, both internally and in comparison to other sports. In all, I'm confident this meets the featured article criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain. One MoS note: I think the title of the article should, strictly speaking, be "Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories", but I don't think it's possible to create partially italic article titles of that format. If someone knows how to do it, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

re title: you can use the DISPLAYTITLE template to modify italics for specific words which I have added. Feel free to revert if that's not what you're looking for. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was hoping could be done. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Horatio Bottomley[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Horatio Bottomley was one of those public figures whose private activities beggar belief. Behind the mask of the bluff, honest man of the people, the crusading journalist, the fiercely independent parliamentarian was a preternatural swindler who blithely appropriated to himself hundreds of thousands of pounds of other people's money, over many decades, repeatedly demolishing the forces of law that tried to bring him to book. He gained such a hold on public opinion during the First World War that many expected him to join the government, and the writer D.H. Lawrence thought he would become prime minister. He lost everything in the end, went to prison and died in poverty, but for a while was one of the most popular and admired men in Britain. Thanks are due to the faithful peer reviewers, and to Bencherlite for providing free legal expertise. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my few quibbles were dealt with there. This article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. I think BB's morbid addiction to scandals calls for counselling, but nonetheless this is a brilliant piece of work, comprehensive, well sourced, fair and mightily entertaining. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Also one of the peer reviewers, generally agree, counseling unnecessary where alcohol will serve, ditto, ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support A third peer reviewer, and a third happy punter from that process, where my small points were adequately covered. A very entertaining read, and happy to regard this as FA-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This is a fascinating article, I'm glad I read it. But I do have some minor concerns with language that I don't think translates well. For instance, "trenchant populist views" appears to mean "insightful", which I think makes more sense on both sides of the pond. Is it OK if I go in and make minor GR edits like these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be a bit chary of that. "Trenchant populist views" doesn't mean "insightful", but is a sober, Wikipedian way of saying that he was a tub-thumping would-be demagogue. Tim riley talk 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Trenchant" can mean "incisive" rather than "insightful". In this context it stands for "vigorously expressed", which I think is the more generally understood meaning. Thanks, Tim, for your demotic translation. To Maury: thanks for your interest. However, I'd be pleased if you raised your suggestions here rather than just going ahead, to avoid possible later argument.Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support – The Little Phoebe of the peer reviewers, I too am fully satisfied with this article's quality. This is a thorough, concise, and extremely well written piece of work and one I happily support to FA status. Cassiantotalk 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of the above for these kind comments, supports, offers of counselling and alcohol. All gratefully accepted. Would someone please explaine the Phoebe reference? Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmph! See here for Phoebe. Something may have to be done. Tim riley talk 15:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was something to do with Friends (or The Yeomen of the Guard) Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. What a beautifully crafted piece. Found nothing with which to quibble. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Most grateful for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Harry Glicken[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A brilliant guy who just rubbed people the wrong way, Glicken was a first-rate scientist and one strange dude. Besides the first image in the infobox (still searching for its original source), I think this is all set to become an FA. ceranthor 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I intended to peer-review this, but got caught up with other things. Here are a few initial comments, concerning the lead. I'll add a few more, later.

  • "notably blamed himself" - lose the adverb, per WP:EDITORIAL
  • "...who had switched shifts with Glicken so that he could attend an interview." Presently ambiguous as to who went to the interview. Suggest replace "he" with "the latter"
  • "per his parents' wishes": it would be better to replace the informal shorthand "per" with its actual meaning: "in accordance with".
  • "Despite a long-term interest in working for the United States Geological Survey, Glicken never received a permanent post there because employees found him bizarre". I think "bizarre" is too loaded a word in an encyclopedia article, especially with no further explanation. Perhaps "because of a reputation for eccentricity" or some such.
  • There's a vastly overlong sentence, beginning "Conducting independent research..." that needs subdividing.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Should all be resolved. ceranthor 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "in 1980" followed by "In 1980"
  • Over-referencing in first line of "Early work" – 2 citations for his graduation, separate citations for "graduate student" and Univ. of California.
  • "previously dormant" – just "dormant"
  • "He became so distraught that he refused to accept Johnston's death,[4] requiring comfort from Don Swanson to eventually calm down." Kind of clunky. May I suggest: "In his distraught state, Glicken refused to accept Johnston's death, and was comforted by Swanson before calming down".
  • We could do with a few more date indicators: "the summer after the eruption" makes a look back to find the year, and thereafter, zilch in this section
  • Again "who found him bizarre". See my comment above over the use of this word. "Who found his behavioral oddities unsettling" would I think be acceptable.
  • Suggest avoid "...Unzen. Unzen..."
  • I wonder why you've pipe-linked "eruptive activity" in relation to Mt Unzen rather than with the earlier example of Mt St Helens
  • "near the end of May." – year?
  • "the niche grew" – unclear, further explanation required
  • "extremely detailed and comprehensive work" –delete the adverb

Will finish tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Think I addressed all the clear-cut ones. Two ones I just want to make sure I took care of:
  1. The dates. In general the dates are hazy for Glicken's research, but he basically spent summer 1980 through 1989 working at St. Helens as far as I can discern. If I need to dig around for more clear dates, feel free to ask me to do so. Did some digging, and found out that the latest source referenced in his report is from 1986. This would imply he was done with all of his research by 1986, but that would be original research unless I can find it elsewhere, I should think.
  2. The niche. I tweaked this to say that research in the niche grew, but essentially this sentence means that volcanic debris avalanches became recognized as a widespread phenomenon and he inspired people to conduct research in such a specialized field.
Thanks for your comments so far! ceranthor 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "...was later published in 1996 a single report by his acquaintances..." – is there an "as" missing after 1996? I would actually make this a separate sentence: "It was later published" etc
  • "comprises" rather than "compiles" (reports don't "compile")
  • "painstakingly" – another editorial adverb for the chop
  • "In his work for the report..." Verbose: either delete, or "In the report,..."
  • "Glicken's father, Milton" – no need to name him again
  • "After ... says" does not work. "After ... said". I'm not sure that Dad's words are worth quoting verbatim, though
  • Likewise, "keen" is a commonplace term that shouldn't be in quotes.
  • Conversely, if you are going to use the word "crazy", then this should be in quotes, provided the word is used in the source. If it isn't the word should not be used.
  • The examples of his odd social behavior look out of place in a "Legacy" section. Here's a suggestion: change section title to "Tributes and legacy"; drop the last anecdotal three sentences; move the sentence beginning "Chatty, noted for ..." up so that it becomes the second sentence in the paragraph. Then move the whole paragraph so that it is the first, rather than the last, in the section. That way, the section builds towards a summary of Glicken's achievements and status, rather than ending anti-climactically, with examples of his oddness.
  • Footnote 1: I wonder if it is worth including a footnote to highlight such a small difference in the death toll between the two sources? I think I'd just say 42 or 43 in the text, and cite both sources.

This is an engaging account of the short life of someone who clearly made an impressive contribution to volcanology – a subject of which I have no knowledge, but the necessary technical detail is clearly explained. Once my remaining concerns are addressed, I see no barriers to the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of these all appropriately. I replaced crazy with a quote, which refers to him as a nut. Thanks so much for all your help, Brian! ceranthor 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sources review
  • Ref 11: the titlein the ref does not mach the title in the source. Is the link to the right article?
  • Ref 33: appears to link to an unrelated article
  • Be consistent in including publisher locations in source book descriptions.

Otherwise all sources look of appropraite quality, are properly formatted, and all links are working. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support subject to the sources fixes mentioned above. I have not checked images. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Should all be fixed. I replaced the USGS ref with the newly-linked GVP page. I hope you don't mind that I changed your header to a ; style heading. Thanks so much for your input and support, Brian. ceranthor 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Secret of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When you think of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made, 1993's Secret of Mana is assuredly on the list, up there with Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, and EarthBound. Heck, according to GameRankings, it's one of the best SNES games ever made in any genre. And now, it's available to you for your reviewing pleasure! The article has been fairly solid for a long time—it's a well-known game, after all—but in January I pushed through, rewrote almost all of it, and got it up to GA level. After sitting on it for a few months, I'm still pretty pleased with the way it turned out, and I think it can go all the way. Early-90's games can be hard to source, as the games journalism (cough) field was small and mainly offline, and this game got a surprisingly small marketing push in America for how much it sold in Japan (it's the 21st best-selling SNES game ever, but 80%+ of the sales were in Japan), but I think I've hoovered up everything that could be found and made a pretty nice article. Feel free to explain to me exactly how I'm terribly wrong, or to shock me with easy supports. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Hey, I fielded this page's GAN! Nice to see you've gone a bit further with it; I'll put down some comments later today. Tezero (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Alright, here I go. Just a warning; I'm gonna be more stringent with the prose than I was at GAN:

  • The intro's a bit long considering the size of the article; Reception/Legacy in particular is given a lot of real estate. It could stand at two-thirds its current size and be just fine.
  • "the hero, the girl, and the sprite" - Popoi and Primm should be named.
  • "Flammie, a miniature dragon which is controlled by the player and able to fly freely across the world, represented by an overworld map" - Minor question, but is Flammie's gender given?
  • "In an unspecified time period" - A little wordy; I'd prefer "Sometime".
  • "The three main characters do not have names in the original SNES release" - Does the player pick their names?
  • "scamming people at the dwarves' freak show" - This is phrased as though this show is referenced earlier, but the reader knows nothing about it. At the very least, go like "a freak show held by dwarves".
  • "as well as with her father for setting her up for an arranged marriage" - With whom?
  • "Mana Sword, and" - Shouldn't be a comma here.
  • "amnesiac sprite child" - What does he remember back to?
  • "Over time, however, Thanatos narrows his selection to Dyluck" - Does it say elsewhere in the game why he picks Dyluck? If not, why is this an "over time" process?
  • What does the Mana Beast look like?
  • How does it reveal itself?

I'll be back for Development and onward later. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Replying here instead of inline.
  • I don't know why FAC has decided in the past few months that we should all move to 2-paragraph intros, but I disagree- right now game release info, plot, gameplay, development, reception, and legacy get like 1-2 sentences each; any further cut down and I'd be skipping sections. I've done intros this long for much shorter FAs.
  • Done
  • Flammie's male, but it's never relevant beyond that pronouns need to be gendered in English, and I don't see a good way to integrate it into the sentence.
  • Done.
  • Yes, added.
  • Fixed; sorry, characters was clawed out of a lengthier plot section.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Video game amnesia, not real amnesia, so all of it, even though he obviously knows language and stuff. The quote is "This child received such a shock from drifting here, it lost all its memories." - It's included in the cited quotes.
  • Reworded it; the relevant quote is "For ages I have been searching...for a human with the power to conquer this world... born in the shadow of darkness, and raised in the light of Mana. Dyluck is the one. I cannot wait any longer. My body has grown weak! It is time! Using his body I will take the Mana Fortress, and rule the world!"
  • Renamed creature to dragon; it looks kinda similar to Flammie, but a lot bigger, more monstrous, and less friendly
  • Reworded to "flies in"; it just kinda... shows up. Flies up to the party from below the screen.
@Tezero: alright, responded to everything you've posted so far. --PresN 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The real-time battle system used in Secret of Mana is described" - Minor, but perhaps this should be "has been described". It's not a recent description, and perhaps one or more of the creators will die before too long.
  • "a lack of sequential text" - ???
  • "Other Western localizations were done to German and French" - Is "to" the right pronoun, and is "Western" necessary?
  • "Kikuta was originally chosen for Secret of Mana after Kenji Ito, who had composed the soundtrack for Final Fantasy Adventure and was originally slated for the project, was forced to drop it due to other demands on his time such as the soundtrack to Romancing SaGa." - Not awful, but kind of a run-on.
  • "to create an immersive three-dimensional sound" - clarify
  • " Rather than use premade MIDI samples of instruments like most game music composers of the time, Kikuta made his own MIDI samples that matched the hardware capabilities of the SNES so that he would know exactly how the pieces would sound on the system's hardware instead of having to deal with audio hardware differences between the original MIDI sampler and the SNES." - Also quite a dinosaur-bite, as my dad would say.
  • "covers both "ominous" and "light-hearted" tracks" - I'd prefer "includes", or switch "tracks" to "themes".
  • "The title track to the game, "Fear of the Heavens", was designed by Kikuta to sync up with the title screen as it slowly faded in due to hardware limitations; at the time trying to match the audio and visual effects in a game was rare." - Hardware limitations? This seems contradictory. Did he succeed in innovating or not?
  • "Secret of Mana was one of the first soundtrack releases in North America for the North American version of a Japanese game" - Had North American adaptations of Japanese games received soundtrack releases elsewhere? If not, strike "in North America".
  • "with the catalog number N25D-019"/"catalog numbers PSCN-5030 and NTCP-5030" - Relevance?
  • Actually... Given how droning and repetitive the text in this paragraph is - which is, to a large extent, not your fault - it might work better as a bulleted list.
  • "Secret of Mana shipped 1.83 million copies worldwide" - should be "had shipped" or "has shipped"
  • "were also highly reviewed" - There could easily be more releases, so I'd prefer "have also been highly reviewed".
  • Why is Re-releases part of Reception, especially when they're discussed earlier? I'd put it in Development.
  • Not a strict objection, but why is the image of Flammie flying a GIF? It doesn't move.

Everything else looks fine, I'd say. Tezero (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Done
  • Moved down and reworded
  • Dropped Western and changed to into
  • Split
  • Reworked a bit, though those word choices were Kikuta's
  • Split
  • changed to includes
  • reworded
  • done
  • Removed
  • I'll see what I can do, but embedded lists are rarely the answer.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Don't know, that's just what the original image was, and I left it in the article. GIFs don't need to be animated, by the way, that's not their only purpose, though PNG might be better for this image since there aren't large color blocks.
--PresN 20:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, then. Interesting about GIFs, that; I did not know that. Tezero (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]

Can you expand the "legacy" part of the article? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 03:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really; if I had sources to do so I would have, but I don't. That's the problem with games from the early 90s that weren't that popular in America as compared to Japan, and whose series kinda faded out outside of Japan- Seiken 3 never got released in English, and Seiken 4 (Legend of Mana) was the last one to do well at all. --PresN 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the composer and pianist Frédéric Chopin. The subject is listed as a level 3 vital article; although the article has been subject to some alarums and excursions in the past it has now been stable for quite some while. The peer review has been supportive and constructive, and I am grateful to those who participated. Now that the suggestions of reviewers have been generally adopted, (and reasons offered in the few cases where they where not), I believe it to be at, or very close, to FA status. I look forward to comments. Thanks, - Smerus (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A very well researched and engaging article. All my comments were well addressed at the PR. --Stfg (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I, too, was active at the peer review stage, during which the article was pretty thoroughly worked over. A couple of final quibbles:
  • There are a few uncited statements at the ends of paragraphs. See, for example "Death and funeral", 2nd paragraph: "Later that morning, Solange's husband Clésinger made Chopin's death mask and a cast of his left hand." In the Music section the first "Overview" para is uncited, as is the last part of the final Overview paragraph. There are a few other instances; in some cases it may be more a case of adjusting the position of the citation rather than adding a new one.
  • A suggestion: short quotations, e.g. Liszt's remark in the "Franz Liszt" section, are best kept within the main prose, rather than as blockquotes. Short blockquotes give the prose an unnecessarily fragmented appearance, especially when there are two close together, as in the "Technique and performance style" section.

These are small matters. I have no hesitation in supporting the article's promotion to FAC, subject to the usual source and image clearances. An excellent composer biography. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I think I have now dealt with the points you mention.--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments. A fine article; I also commented at the peer review. Reading through again I see a couple of minor points:

  • "Even in early childhood, Chopin was of slight build and prone to illnesses": perhaps "Chopin was of slight build, and even in early childhood was prone to illnesses"? I don't think his build should be in the scope of "even" here.
  • "It quickly became apparent that he was a child prodigy, and by the age of seven Fryderyk had begun giving public concerts, and in 1817 he composed two polonaises, in G minor and B-flat major": two consecutive "and" conjunctions in one sentence. I think a full stop after "prodigy" and then "By the age..." might be better.
  • On re-reading I realize that you don't mention whether he was raised speaking French; it's apparent later in the article that he could speak it, but preferred Polish. If he was raised to be bilingual perhaps that could be mentioned in either the "Childhood" or "Education" sections.
  • "where, for the last time in his life, he met his parents": you have "met" three times in quick succession here, and in any case "met" has the wrong connotations for a visit to his parents. How about "where he spent time with his parents; it was the last time he would see them"?
  • I think Arthur Hedley should be identified when his opinion is given: "Musicologist Arthur Hedley". (I don't think this sort of attributive description is necessary everywhere -- for example, in the Polish heritage section, you introduce a paragraph with "Some modern commentators", which serves to characterize each of the writers you then quote; and in the Form and harmony section I think there is sufficient implication that the opinions are from musicologists or historians of music.)
  • "But they also require a formidable playing technique": The "But" seems unnecessary to me.
  • Attributing an opinion to "Grove Music Online" in the text of the article seems odd -- wouldn't it be better to give the names of the authors of that article? E.g "musicologists Michałowski and Samson"?

All very minor points in a very impressive article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have responded to many, but not yet all, of your comments in the article text. I'm now away for a few days, so intend to catch up on these and any other comments on my return.--Smerus (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've struck the points you've dealt with and switched to support above; the two remaining points are very minor and it would not affect my support if you don't agree. It's great to see such an important article make it to this level of quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I had one minor query about the comprehensiveness of the literature consulted, but on second thoughts that's just nitpicking that wouldn't have stopped me from supporting anyway. Excellent article. And thank you, because it is an important one. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

Impressive, written with knowledge and enthiusiasm! Some minor points for consideration (I will not mention my major one again, it's on the article talk), and more may come up once I have more time:


  • "He gained and has maintained renown worldwide as one of the leading musicians of his era" seems needlessly complicated. I doubt that we can say "He maintained" of a dead person.
  • "Chopin was born in what was then the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Warsaw, which after 1815 became part of Congress Poland." Consider to just say "Chopin grew up in Warsaw." and leave the rest of politics to the article. We want to get to music!
  • "During the last 18 years of his life, ..." - A reader who forgot his year of death may not realize that there is no break in the chronology.
  • How about songs to Polish lyrics? I would not click "song" otherwise, thinking that I know what a song is.
  • insurrection? - I didn't know the word, but you don't have to adjust your style to people limited in language who would profit from a you-know-what.


  • "Chopin was of slight build, and even in early childhood was prone to illnesses." - "even in early childhood"? how about something like "already in early childhood"?


  • "and on this instrument in May 1825 he performed his own improvisation" - long time until a verb appears, almost German
  • "the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung praised his "wealth of musical ideas"" - the paper certainly wrote not in English
  • Why "Piano Concerto no. 1? vs. No. 1

So far for now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I found it once and removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Frederic_Chopin_photo.jpeg: what is the copyright status of the original unrestored image?
  • File:CHopin_SIgnature.svg: bluntly, nothing on the image description page is right
  • File:Mikołaj_Chopin.jpg: artist's date of death?
  • File:Franz_Liszt_by_Herman_Biow-_1843.png: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chopinamqsop53.jpg: possible to include a more specific source?
  • Sound files should include licensing tag for original composition (all PD by now) as well as the performance
  • File:Op_62-1ms.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Pere-Lachaise_Chopin_grave.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, we need to include a licensing tag for the monument itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kedok Ketawa[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Union Films' first production, The Laughing Mask. Although modern sources don't have a plot summary (see Biran [2009] and the Indonesian Film Catalogue), I was lucky enough to find a review which went into some detail on the story. This is easily the most complete source on this likely lost film, in any language. I hope you enjoy the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Image is appropriately captioned. Licensing is fine as-is, but it's nearly at the PD-text level. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Singora

Not a bad article! It's interesting, but the prose could be spiced up a bit.

1. The first paragraph in the lede introduces us to four actors who are unknown and destined to remain so. I don't believe these guys are so central to the article that they warrant inclusion in this prime piece of Wiki real estate.
2. The clause "The first production of Union Films" is awkward.
3. The final sentence in the lede tells us that the film is likely lost. Note the word "likely".
4. PLOT. This: "a rich man is interested in taking Minarsih to be his wife". The prose strikes me as rather childlike.
5. PLOT. "Basuki is unable to fight them back, but he is soon joined by the a masked vigilante".
5.1 Basuki + a redundant "he".
5.2. Is it "the masked vigilante" or "a masked vigilante"?
6. PLOT. "Basuki and Minarsih can live together in peace". Is that it? Nothing else?
7. PRODUCTION. "Fatimah and Basoeki were nobles with relatively extensive educations". What's an extensive education? Why not show rather than tell?
8. RELEASE AND RECEPTION. In the second paragraph you use the verb "praise" three times in just four sentences. How about "laud" or "commend" or "commented positively on"?
9. LEGACY. In paragraph two you talk again about how the film is "likely" lost and observe that "visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider suggests that all Indonesian films from before 1950 are lost". No. Mr Heider writes that movies made before 1950 have been lost. He's not suggesting anything, nor is he talking about probabilities. I think you should contrast Heider's claim with a while construction:
9.1 While American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider has written that all Indonesian films from before 1950 are lost, J.B. Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia records several as having survived at Sinematek Indonesia's archives. Furthermore, film historian Misbach Yusa Biran notes that several Japanese propaganda films have survived at the Netherlands Government Information Service. (Note: you don't need definite articles when introducing Heider and Biran.)
9.2. So in whose opinion is the movie "likely" lost? Are you sure this isn't simply your own opinion?
10. See this URL for Heider's book: It points directly to page 14. Use this instead of the URL you've currently got.

Good luck!!

Singora (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, glad to see you're back at FAC. Replies follow:
  • 1: Of the four, Basoeki Resobowo is probably the only one likely to get an article (though that would mostly be for his work as an artist and not his acting). But since WP:REDLINK is against RL-ing biographies, I haven't done so. As for removing the names entirely, that wouldn't fly. I'd consider removing Eddy Kock, since his is the only role not explicit in the plot summary that has surfaced... but wholesale removal would go against expectations for a film. If this was something like Eulis Atjih, in which the actors names aren't even known, sure... but not for something with a definite cast.
  • 2: Reworked.
  • 3: See reply below.
  • 4: Reworked a little bit. The source doesn't go into any more detail, sadly.
  • 5: Nixed "he". I think from a purely grammatical POV both are acceptable, but I feel as though "a" is more natural.
  • 6: That's where the review stops. As I mentioned in my nomination statement, that's already more than any source I've seen since.
  • 7: In the source, Fatimah is only said to be "educated", while Basoeki is confirmed to have graduated from AMS (equivalent to senior high school). I've removed "relatively" and added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 8: Now only one.
  • 9: The direct quote is "films made before 1950 have been lost and the few films preserved from the 1950s are rarely seen". The contrast between the unqualified "films made before 1950" and "the few films preserved from the 1950s" suggests that there is an implied "all" in that sentence. I'm not the only one with this reading of Heider's text, see Jean Gelman Taylor's article in Fantasizing the Feminine in Indonesia. As for the second point, I've changed to "may" rather than "likely", as in the historical context the possibility is far too likely to simply ignore it and remove the paragraph (and thus imply that the film is still extant). Sadly, there are no sources that say explicitly that it is lost, which would make my job a lot easier. I think the only Indies film which sources explicitly state to be lost is Terang Boelan. To be honest, I think "likely" is still defensible, as the proportion of films which we can verify have survived (through Kristanto's catalogue, or elsewhere such as in Sinematek's inventory [which I have a copy of, although it's technically unpublished]) is considerably lower than the number which we cannot verify.
  • 10: I prefer not pointing to single pages using Google Books, as it keeps it simpler and easier to read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

More comments from Singora

1. RE: "Union Films' first production, it was directed by Jo An Djan and starred Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo". Isn't this a non-sequitur?
1.1. How about "The movie was Union Films' first production and directed by Jo An Djan; it starred Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo"?
2. RE: "The film follows a young couple who face off against criminals". Is "face off" truly encyclopedic?
3. RE: "Basuki is unable to fight them back, but is soon joined by the a masked vigilante". What's wrong with this?
4. RE: "emphasising the quality of its cinematography and acting". I like that! Much better.
5. RE: "may now be lost". This still strikes me as bordering on original research. It's your opinion: it's a conclusion you've drawn from the sources.
6. RE: Google Books. Why does not pointing to the page you're referring to keep things "simpler and easier to read"? Why should I (your intended audience) have to search the book to find the passage you're quoting?
7. RE: anarthrous nominal premodifiers. Wow! That is vastly superior pretentiousness!

PS. Do you need the full stop after "sweet romance"?

As I said before, it's a good article. I guess you now need a few more guys to come along and give opinions and feedback.

Singora (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

    • 1. Tried reworking in a way which avoids "movie".
    • 2. Have gone with "fight off"
    • 3. It hasn't won a Pulitzer? (fixed by removing "the")
    • 4. Thanks!
    • 5. Short of a complete (or, relatively complete, considering how documentation from Indonesia ends up in the weirdest places... I recall hearing that a nearly complete collection of the first 10 years of Soeara Moehammadijah was in... Chicago, of all places) inventory of what films are now extant (none existent, as far as I've seen; to make one as a journal article would be on my to do list if I could find a backer, since such an endeavour would mean the Netherlands, Jakarta, and Japan, at the very least, and probably Singapore) there appears to be little chance of a solid "yes" or "no" either way. I believe the sources support a "may" or "might", and that implying that the film is still extent by omitting such information would be a poor overview of sources. I would welcome any way of phrasing this that does not violate your understanding of OR, but I cannot abide by wholesale removal. Perhaps something like "JB Kristanto's Indonesian Film Catalogue does not record the film being held at Sinematek Indonesia", but then people would ask "so what?".
    • 6. At the code level, it's simpler and takes up less space. It is also less likely to confuse people if the book is not previewable in their area (as Google sets it by location... there are a lot of full view books that I can't access from Indonesia), since they shouldn't expect to go straight to a page.
    • 7. I agree, a little, but if that's the preferred form in BrE (and style guides support it) I guess that's how it must be for formal writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments to follow a.s.a.p. – If (said he, peering censoriously over the top of his reading glasses) the mention of the undersigned was merely to point out what a prim and proper native English writer would write, I shall be dishing out 100 lines for your impertinence. If, on the other hand, as I strongly suspect, it was a crafty ploy to get me to join this review it has succeeded admirably. Give me till tomorrow, please, and I'll review and pitch in here. Tim riley talk 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank ye, oh great and fair school master of the three Wikis — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. On first looking at it I was rather taken aback at the brevity of the article, but having read it carefully I can't think what more could usefully be said. The text is clear, the sourcing is thorough and broad, and I imagine in the circumstances described in the article that it is as well illustrated as it could possibly be. If we're playing the false title game, there is one at "While American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider", but we shan't fall out over that. The lead is short, but then so is the article, and it would be foolish to pad the lead out just to meet WP norms. As far as I can see this page meets the FA criteria, and I see no reason to oppose. Tim riley talk 15:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. Blast! One lousy mistake away from no comments! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More from Singora -- the Dracuala connection

1. See this link
2. I'm searching Google books for Kedok Ketawa dracula
3. See what comes up ..............
4. East-West Film Journal - Volume 6, Issue 2 - Page 102: This lesson was applied religiously until the arrival of the Japanese army in 1942: Tar- zan became Alang-Alang and Dracula became Kedok Ketawa and Tengkorak Hidup. This tradition is still part of Indonesia's film business culture.
5. Malaysian Films: The Beginning: The influence of Dracula films was seen in the birth of Kedok Ketawa or Topeng Ketawa produced by the Union Film Company in 1940 which was considered to have vastly improved in terms of quality and, hence, went down well with the ...
6. Shadows on the silver screen: Kedok Ketawa (The Laughing Mask) were mere imitations of Dracula films which were in circulation before the beginning of the Japanese occupation in 1942.

Your article claims the film "may" have been influenced by Dracula. Singora (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Alright, these sources are a bit more affirmative than the one I'd cited. I'll see if I can get the full article of the East-West Film Journal at WP:RX, as that connects it to the cultural context. Thanks for the link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Worked in, although I've also left a note that neither of these sources "show" and not "tell". Said note may be made a footnote if you think it's distracting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar, if existing histories are complete (one would hope after almost a century). Although not a tremendous success, it filled an important gap in coverage during critical periods of the war, and perhaps more importantly, acted as the basis for many other very successful radar systems like the ASV and Type 7. It's also a story complete with infighting, backstabbing, rushed moves, incompetence and lucky breaks.

This article was created offline over a three month period, so it appears ex nihlo largely complete. With the exception of some GR and SP, and some ongoing work sourcing additional images and switching cites (I'm using original authors where possible, as opposed to newer sources), the article should be largely complete and stable.

I think it's a fascinating bit of history, and I hope you will to.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Several captions need editing for grammar, particularly punctuation
  • File:Handley_Page_Heyford.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Fairey_Battle_ExCC.jpg: approximate date?
  • File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is redirecting
  • File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg: source link is redirecting
  • File:AI_Mk_IV_simulated_display.jpg: not seeing licensing info at source link - where does the CC license come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Which captions need editing? As to the sourcing I can only speak to the last one, it's filed with ORTS and we're just waiting for it to get stamped as such. As to the rest, as they are all clearly in PD, do we need to fix any of these issues? If so, is that my job or the up loaders? I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we need to be able to verify that the information given is correct if you're going to be using those images in a potential FA. Captions in particular need of editing include RDF 1.5, ASV emerges, Baedeker Blitz, and Displays and interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jamesx12345

  • Refs 85, 93 and 95 don't point to anything at the moment.
  • "shot up" - this sounds like a bad pun. "Increased rapidly" might be more appropriate.
  • "The Mk. IV began being replaced at the end of 1941 by the prototype Mk. VII" - "The prototype Mk. VII began to replace the Mk. IV at the end of 1941"
  • "could only be expected to" - was this the designers' assessment, and does the inaccuracy result from this delay or something else? A reference for this statement would be nice.
I got all of these except one. The last one is interesting - if you found the wording difficult, perhaps you can come up with another way to say it. The basic idea is that each of the reporting systems -huff-duff, CH and ROC- had slightly different *in*accuracies so if you plotted the reports on a map you didn't get a single point but three separated ones. Additionally, the target aircraft were moving throughout this process. So unless you have zero reporting times, by the time you get the instructions to the fighter pilot the target is long gone. The intercept officers were trained to estimate the future location of the target based on interpolating the movement of the reports, but this was based on old and conflicting information. All of this added up. Do you think I should expand this section? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey James, I found some discussion of the accuracy issue in Bowen's book, which you can see on Google Books - at least it's visible to me, who knows what they'll let you see! I added two relevant mentions from that book, let me know if you think the statement is OK to go now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's perfect - it reads more nicely as well. Jamesx12345 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "forefathers" - "predecessors"
  • "arranged before they reached" - "arranged before the bombers reached" - bit clearer
  • "the first definition of the technical" - I think criteria might be a better word.
  • "was not available, at least not in portable form" - "was not available in portable form"
  • Daventry Experiment can be linked.
  • "...radar systems at this period of the war." - is it a war yet?
  • "further increase in power to as much as 2 kW" - is that peak or continual?
All in James! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the first two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Maury, welcome to FAC.
  • "was the ultimate model": I know you mean "final", but the other meanings (best, defining, etc.) are more common, and some readers don't get the "final" meaning at all.
  • "First considered in 1936,": I don't actually know what that means. Did someone think it would be a nice thing to have? Did they do some pencil sketches? Did they build a prototype?
  • "rushed moves and three abandoned production designs": Does the "rushed moves" mean something other than rushing three designs into production and then abandoning them?
  • "offered detection ranges against large aircraft on the order of 20,000 feet": Reading quickly, I saw one test at exactly 20,000 feet ... what was the variation in this (at sufficient altitude), roughly?
  • " It used two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for display and considerable effort was required on the part of the radar operator to translate these into instructions for the pilot.": Not a major point, go with this if it works for you: "Considerable effort was required of the radar operator to interpret the displays of its two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for the pilot." - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dank, I've added all of these. And yes, that definitely worked for me :-) Detection ranges were given 18 to 20k feet against German bombers, which may be simply due to differences in sizes of the different bombers - I assume a Do 17 is harder to see than a He 111. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've also made a few edits to the lede to help clarify the "rushed moves" bit. See if that is better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sonic: After the Sequel[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My last FAC met a rare and gruesome end. Due to the greater depth of the sources available, this one is unlikely to follow it, and I've fixed it up a bunch since its GAN, mostly through helpful comments made at its peer review, so here it is.

Anyway, if you pay attention to the gaming world, you're probably aware that most Sonic the Hedgehog games from the mid-2000s onward have not been well-received. At all. Gaming articles abound in lamentation of how Sega can't just let its furred children die, but one Brazilian fan disagreed. He's enjoyed near-every odd detour the series has taken, and over a couple of years, he combined musical and thematic elements of later Sonics with the familiar gameplay and graphics of the Genesis titles and weird, Newgrounds-style cutscene animations to make a highly developed and polished trilogy. The second such game, which you see here, has for some reason received the most attention from critics, but all three have been acclaimed. Here I stand in hope that its article will receive similar praise. Tezero (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Coulda sworn I already had for LakeFeperd, but done. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If Sonic: Before the Sequel is notable, consider redlinking it.
  • I don't think it's likely to be. For some reason, there's coverage on After the Sequel and the trilogy as a whole, but little to none on Before the Sequel or Chrono Adventure. Probably has to do with After the Sequel piggybacking on Before's mild popularity while improving on it, and Chrono Adventure just being too weird. (It's a time-travel Metroidvania with lengthy cutscenes.) Tezero (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's kind of inconvenient that the "n.a." shows up by default since it doesn't give you the option to fill those in originally... Anyway, done. I think. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider finding a way to work the links from #See also into the text, or at least giving a short reason why they are included (per MOS:SEEALSO).
  • One composer from Sonic 3 emailed one of the After the Sequel musicians. - And?
  • The source doesn't say what happened next. This actually came up at GAN; I wanted to say something like "it is not known what happened next", but even that pittance was deemed to be OR. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think I could support this passing FAC with such an obvious question still hanging. I'll try and help find something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If nothing ever came out of this, and if nothing even talks about the contents of the email (it could just be "good job!", after all), I would seriously consider eliminating this sentence. Although you could mention Sega's previous litigation as context (and to complete the paragraph) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I count seven references, excluding primary sources. Are you sure this is a comprehensive review of the literature on this subject?
  • I'll give a more detailed prose review once this is done.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still concerned about two issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is an unofficial work in the Sonic the Hedgehog series - This implies that the game is canon, which it decidedly is not. "Set in the Sonic the Hedgehog universe" or something, maybe?
  • Reworded. Tezero (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sega Genesis Sonic games - First, WP:SEAOFBLUE suggests separating those two links. Second, to differentiate between Sonic 1, the series, and the character, I'd change the link to "Sonic games"
  • with each zone divided into three acts followed by a boss fight with Doctor Eggman. - how exactly does the quote support this?
  • By listing the composer for each act. Or is this about Eggman being the boss? Tezero (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • zone, - I'd have expected this link in the gameplay section
  • Unlike many longtime Sonic fans, Daneluz remained supportive of the series through its "dark age" in the mid to late 2000s and enjoyed games such as Sonic Riders. - might want to discuss, just a little, how negative reception of those games has been, for people who don't follow VGs.
  • I listed the meager GameRankings scores Riders got for context; it might be straying too much from the focus (as well as OR) to list those of, say, '06, Shadow, Genesis, Black Knight, or those others with particularly poor reviews. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm... what about as a footnote? Personally, I think a bit of context is necessary to get the point the sources are making across. Regular readers of the sources may have an idea of exactly how terribly recent Sonic games have been received, and thus the sources you have are not explicit, but our average readers probably don't know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What I've done is list the GameRankings scores of all Sonic games released during 2006, likely the critical nadir of his career, in a footnote. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't think you've linked to the games proper in the article text (only in the lede). Consider doing so.
  • "Games proper"? I link to Sonic 2 and 3 in the body, specifically in Plot; what others should I? Tezero (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, then I misremembered. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OH. No, you were right; I hadn't linked to Sonic 1 in the body text. Just fixed that. And I'll look for an Eggman citation, though it seems obvious and I don't expect it will be difficult to find... Tezero (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • MaxieDaMan - And this is who, exactly?
  • Again, the lack of a CAD notice might require background for the average reader; why is this worth noting?
  • As of March 2014, the trilogy had been downloaded 120,000 times, as compared to the 640,000 copies of the official game Sonic Lost World (also released in 2013) sold by the same time. - you don't exactly state that this is a rare tour de force for an indie game, like you do in the lede — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, only question left is whether or not that email should actually be included. I mean, it goes nowhere and is only mentioned offhandedly in one source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've merged a few of the paragraphs together after redacting that sentence. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support assuming that no further RSes are found. Good read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism[edit]

  • "the trilogy of Before the Sequel, After the Sequel, and third installment Sonic Chrono Adventure" — A bit ambiguous. (i.e.: The trilogy of Before the Sequel: After the Sequel and third installment Sonic Chrono Adventure)
  • How is it ambiguous? How would adding a colon in place of a comma make it any less so? Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The example inside the parentheses is how one could interpret the sentence (as if you were referring to After the Sequel and Sonic Chrono which form the trilogy of Before the Sequel). pedro | talk 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Prism, I've reworded it a little, although I don't think it's confusing either way as a trilogy would not include two items. (Also, you used the word "support" in your last edit summary. I don't know whether you mean to say that you support this nomination, but if so, please state this outright in bold.) Tezero (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove also from "can also fly" (redundant)
  • Um... why? It isn't used earlier, and I think it helps keep it unambiguous that Tails' ability to fly does not come at the expense of some other ability. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "it includes ones typical of the Sonic series" — awkward wording
  • Reworded to "typical Sonic power-ups". Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad. That came from the merging of a few paragraphs and I didn't notice it earlier. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "more reserved" seems like NPOV
  • Well, his praise was less effusive. I'm not claiming one way or the other whether the game is good or whether he's a biased writer. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The average reader should be able to figure out that he was more reserved while referencing the music. Anyway, I'm not going to insist.
  • While refs aren't explicitly part of the FAC, we have to ensure that these articles are in top-notch condition. Can you insert the publishers for websites on their refs?
  • This isn't standard (only czar does it as far as I know), it's not required now (plenty of video game FAs pass without them), and I think it would set an onerous precedent if it became required. However, for information's sake:
  • Kotaku - Gawker Media
  • Red Bull - Red Bull
  • Game Rankings - CBS Interactive
  • NintendoLife - Network
  • IndieGames - UBM Tech
  • Destructoid - independent
  • Per WP:VG/S — has "author reliability" been checked for Damien McFerran, considering he's an editor for NintendoLife?
  • He's the editorial director of NintendoLife and a couple of other sites and has also written for IGN UK and Eurogamer. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you ping me when you respond to those comments? Thank you, pedro | talk 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prism: Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I now Support the article as I believe it fulfills all of the FA criteria (i.e. follows the MOS rules, is extremely comprehensive even though there wasn't a lot of coverage for this game, its prose is brilliant—all in all, an article developed by Tezero. Keep up the good work. pedro | talk 18:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2012[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, earlier this year, ThaddeusB created an article about this year's "edition" of The Boat Race and managed to get it into the In The News section. Encouraged by this and passively goaded by Bencherlite, I've set about trying to create well written and well referenced articles about every running of this peculiarity of amateur sports held annually since 1829. This race, probably the most controversial of modern times, seemed like a good place to start. It's been through GAN and PR, so now it's here. Thanks to all who take the time to comment. And thanks to Mike Christie, Ruhrfisch and Dom497 for the various reviews that have got me at least this far... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review (prose review to follow once my image concerns are dealt with)
    • File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg - The date of creation of the coat of arms itself is certainly not 2013. This should be updated to the correct date. Also, as the University of Cambridge is a British university, a UK PD tag is necessary.
      • I don't know the answer to the question. I've removed it until someone who is more knowledgeable than me can answer it and resolve your concern. Would you be able to help me with this? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Looking at Commons:Coats_of_arms, I suspect that we'd have to ask the image lab to produce a rendering based on the blazon. Cambridge's coat of arms was granted in 1453, but according to Commons "Generally speaking, the author's right on a CoA is attached to the artist that draws a given representation, not to the CoA definition (the blazoning). Therefore, a CoA can be freely drawn after a model (without involving derivative rights), but a given picture "found on the internet" cannot be uploaded: it must be redrawn." In more simple terms, if the image is taken directly from an official website (like File:Oxford University Coat Of Arms.svg) it would be a copyvio, but if it were redrawn (say, at the image lab) based on the blazon it would be free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
          • So are you suggesting that all usage of this existing image in Wikipedia is "illegal"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
            • To the best of my understanding of Commons:Coats_of_arms, yes. Nikkimaria may be more familiar with the technicalities behind this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
              • So I guess it should be deleted from Commons? I'm no expert, as demonstrated above.... I suppose that means I need to remove them from the template at the bottom of the page as well? Or will a bot do that once the offending items are deleted at Commons? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Commons seems to be contradicting itself a bit there, but either way in this particular case given the age of the COA I'd expect that an image old enough to be free should exist already. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Hmm... I guess that means checking Internet Archive for a pre-1923 rendition. If it's essentially the same, then we'd just have to colour it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Same goes with File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg
    • File:University Boat Race Thames map.svg - What's the source of the base map (i.e. the shape and relative size of the river?), or, if there is no base map, the data used to make this map? Also, the link to PoL is dead, for me. This archive link works.
      • I'm not sure I can tell you the answer you're seeking. The image in its use on the article makes no claims of scale, accuracy etc, moreover it's simply there to provide context to the race description. I don't think "base data" is required. I generally avoid editing Commons, but will see what I can do about adding in the archive link. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm... perhaps a note similar to "the shape of the river can be confirmed from [link]". Not really worried about the base data, but just something that can vouch for the (relative) accuracy of the map. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I've added a note, is it sufficient for you? Did you see my request above? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Saw it. Haven't had much luck yet. Will get back to you on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • All photographs are okay (licensed freely on Flickr, no evidence of flickr washing) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Prose comments from Crisco
    • Despite having the heavier crew, Oxford were pre-race favourites having had a successful preparation period, including a victory over Leander. - Does BrE require a comma between favourites and having?
    • boats were titled - In Canadian English I don't think I'd say "titled", but "named". I assume BrE accepts "titled"?
      • Titled reads naturally to me, just as named would too. Interchangeable and a matter of preference I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't Goldie be linked on first mention in the Background section?
      • Yes, fixed (and also per Ruhrfisch's note below). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • 1.45pm but 2:15pm: suggest standardizing time formats
    • won the toss - a coin toss? Perhaps link Coin flipping
    • Suggest having Oldfield's full name on first mention in the body (i.e. outside the lead). Also, might be better to say "protestor" or something similar so readers get a bit of context.
    • Charing Cross hospital - As this is a proper name (and the article is at Charing Cross Hospital), recommend having a capital H. Also, are you against linking the hospital?
    • President Nelson - To avoid possible confusion with University president for people who didn't notice the table, is there a way to make it clear that he was president of the boat club in-text?
      • Linked to OUBC and CUBC and recapitalised president. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • suffragette Emily Davidson - I believe that BrE condemns the use of "false titles" like suffragette, and would keep "the" in front of it.
      • Okay, I've not come across that before, but reworded nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • pay £750 costs. - perhaps "in fines"?
  • Very well written. Just a few very minor nitpicks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. A good read. The only remaining image issue is a bit complicated, but I'm certain we can find a way in which some version of the Oxford/Cambridge coats of arms can be used freely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. I spot checked a couple of sources and found no cause for concern. I reviewed this at PR and I think it's in good shape. A suggestion: how about including Hudspith's comment that the Oxford team "went through seven months of hell, this was the culmination of their careers, and [Oldfield] took it away from them"? The Telegraph and Guardian articles both quote it and it would go well alongside the quote from Zeng. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, and thanks again for your help in the PR leading up to this. I've implemented your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Checked most sources and and all is good. Nice article. NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 06:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support – I've reviewed a few of the races at GA, although not this one, and I'm happy to see one of them come up at FAC. Nicely put together, it covers all the points I would expect, and does so well and succinctly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this in PR and found some more free photos for the article on Flickr. The only change I can see on a re-read is to move the link for the Goldie boat to the first mention (up a section). Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh

  • My main comment is on exactly what the article is about. The opening sentence states "an annual side-by-side rowing race", then the second para of the lead introduces the reserve and women's races, so it's not about one ("an") race. There's a full breakdown of the crews for the main race, but nothing at all on the crews for the other two (this info should be easy to find). Under "Races" there's some background on the women's race, then one sentence on what happened; for the reserve race there's a summary of what happened. Then "Reaction" is about only the main race. I think that the article should be a) on only what's now called the "main race", or b) on all three races, with proper coverage given to all of them. As it stands, it's somewhere between these two. EddieHugh (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Typically the main race is the one given all the high profile coverage. The reserve race is normally covered in main press outlets with a single paragraph compared to a few columns for the main race. The women's race, until 2015, has had very little coverage but again, typically the press with cover it with a sentence or two. That's how this article is constructed, reflecting the manner of the way the race is covered traditionally. I understand your concern, and if it results in you not wishing to participate in this review any further, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
To me, that neglects criterion 1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It's also confusing for readers with no background knowledge, as which of three races described is being referred to at various points in the article is not made explicit. (A further omission is that there were, in fact, four races, as there was a reserve race for women, too. Being particularly pedantic, there were six races, including the lightweight women's and lightweight men's races. Again, if the article is about "The Boat Race", then only one needs to be mentioned; if it's about all of them, then all should be mentioned and relevant information supplied. The current situation is confusing for the most important person – the reader. A possible solution is to re-structure, putting the main race and all its info first, then 'other races' or similar in a separate section, and then making explicit in the opening line that the article is about more than one rowing race.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The reserve/women's race is put in context from the background section. Of course, there were the minor lightweights and women's reserve races, but they are seldom, if ever reported upon. I could excise all mention of the reserves/women's race if that would alleviate confusion, but that'd be a bit of a shame, deliberately removing information which is delineated by the use of "women's" and "reserves". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A quick comment, since I supported above. I see EddieHugh's point, but I don't like the proposed solution, and to be honest I don't see an alternative article structure as fixing the issue. Almost all readers are going to search for this article because they're interested in the main boat race. Even if there's enough information on the subsidiary races for them to be notable in their own right, I think they'd end up being merged into this article. The title of this article should reflect the primary topic of the article, so I don't think those races should be mentioned in the title. Perhaps a couple of redirects could be created from e.g. "Women's boat race 2012", if there's a standard name that readers might search for. Overall, I think the article deals with the issue as well as it can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope to have time to give a detailed review of the content, but there's little point if my main comment is not addressed. A couple of early things: sentence 2 has "having the heavier crew" (should be "having the lighter crew") and the infobox has "John Garrett (Oxford)" (more detail needed: I believe that he was chosen by Oxford but previously rowed for Cambridge). EddieHugh (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Missing a "Cambridge" in the lead, so added, thanks. Garrett's () should have been Cambridge, he rowed for them in the 80s, so changed, and added a sentence in the article. Thanks for picking that up. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Respone to EddieHugh - Featured Articles have to be comprehensive, but they also have to follow published sources and policies such as Neutral Point of view, which includes WP:WEIGHT, which says in part "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The 2012 Boat Race was an oddball with the swimmer stopping the race, so I looked at 2011 and 2013 coverage by the BBC: 2011 race and 2013 race. Each news article focuses on the main race, and mentions members of each team (2011 lists both teams in full, 2013 does not), while also briefly mentioning which university won the women's and reserve races. So this article follows the model of reliable news sources and NPOV (and the WP:MOS). I will also mention that the first sentence cannot have everything in it (though the lead should summarize the article as a whole) - please see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. WP:NPOV is really about controversial topics; more generally, it's about views. WP:WEIGHT is also about neutrality of views. There aren't many views in the article: perhaps only what Cam and Ox people said about the race and comments by and about Oldfield. Which races were held is not a view, it's a question of fact: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" applies to viewpoints expressed in the article. Listing, for instance, the women's crews would not be giving undue prominence to a viewpoint (what would the viewpoint be?); it would be giving readers (neutral) information. Not mentioning, for instance, that there was a reserve women's race will lead the reader to conclude erroneously that there wasn't one. Surely what the reader takes away is more important than whether the article is representative of the quantity of information provided by the mainstream media?
Let me try again on the structure... here's the article's structure, with the terms used in each part:
  • Lead. The Boat Race.
the reserve race.
the Women's Boat Race.
  • Background. The Boat Race.
the Women's Boat Race.
the reserve race.
  • Crews. (not stated, but The Boat Race)
  • Races. the Women's Boat Race.
the reserve race.
(not stated, but The Boat Race, now named "the main race")
  • Reaction (not stated, but The Boat Race, now named "the race")

'It's not optimal' is my summary. EddieHugh (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But every mention of the other races is either in its own section with a header relating to women's or reserves, or explicitly referred to as such, all other instances (and you can refer to the same thing a number of ways), relate to the Boat Race. I don't see a problem. And just because something isn't mentioned in an article, it doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We don't have a problem understanding because we have enough background knowledge to allow filters to work automatically (e.g., "the race" = "the boat race" = the men's one; it's easily the most important, so "Crews" is about only that one); my concern is for people who don't have that knowledge. Mentioning the men's boat race, men's reserve race and women's boat race, but not the women's reserve race, runs the risk of people inferring that the last of those did not exist, I suggest. EddieHugh (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that if the women's reserve race exists and can be sourced, it should be mentioned -- I certainly hadn't realized it existed, and as EddieHugh suggests, I actually assumed it did not exist because it wasn't mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I am OK with mentioning the women's reserve race (assume it would be maybe one sentence). I will point out that the women's races were held on a different day and on a different and shorter course, and that there can be up to SIX other races held with the Women's Boat Race - see Henley_Boat_Races#Events. I do not think all six other races need to be mentioned here - I think WP:WEIGHT applies when it says in part "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is an instance of a prominent race, whose result is widely publicised alongside the reserve race (usually a paragraph) and the women's race (usually a sentence). There are other races that exist between the universities, they are not covered here either. We have a main article to cover the panoply of other aspects of the annual event. I could list all the events that happened throughout the year in rowing that featured both crews, but none are particularly notable beyond the three I have already included in this article. As I said from the outset, the best I could offer would be to remove all mention of the reserve and women's race which, I believe, would be to the detriment of the article, so that's not going to happen. So, an impasse. If that results in the unsuccessful closure of the nomination, so be it. I'd rather not get the article "featured" if it doesn't make an attempt to mirror the high quality mainstream resources that have covered the race since 1829 and the other minor races since the 1960s. Thanks for your time, in particular the reviewers at GAN, PR and here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the current structure really clearer than the following possibility?
  • Lead. The Boat Race.
the reserve race.
the Women's Boat Race.
  • The Boat Race. Background. Crews. Race. Reaction
  • The reserve race. (probably 1 or 2 paras covering just background & race if you wish to omit crews)
  • The Women's Boat Race. Background. Race. (probably no more if you wish to omit crews)

This separation of main race and others is, incidentally, very similar to the structure of the main article you mentioned. If you think that the current structure is better, please answer:

Why is it better (for the reader)?
How is the unknowledgeable reader to know that the "Crews" section is about the main race?
How is the unknowledgeable reader to know that the "Reaction" section is about the main race? EddieHugh (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Being BOLD, I added the six-word sentence "Oxford won the women's reserve race." to the end of the paragraph on the Women's race. This is already in the cited source (so no new ref was needed). I do not think it significant enough to be included in the lead, and hope this resolves the dispute and allows this fine article to earn its well deserved FA star. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Late-to-the-party support (from the perspective of a Dark Blue to counterbalance TRM's Light Blue stance - and the perspective of someone who shared a flat for a year with one grad student who trained all year only to come 9th in the selection of 8 rowers for Isis...) The Ruhrfisch compromise is the way forward - frankly, very few even within Oxbridge (let along outside - family members excepted!) care about the result of the lightweights races or the reserve women's crews' race; the Isis—Goldie race gets a smidgen of coverage because it's the curtain-raiser to the main event; and so this article gives appropriate coverage. The only question for the hard-working TRM is whether there's anything in sources about whether security for the Olympics was enhanced in the light of the Oldfield incident. BencherliteTalk 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It's a good question. I can't find anything specific about it, the Financial Times had an article which referred to the more open events, such as road races etc which would be exposed to such "lone warrior" behaviour, but I guess it meant nothing more than a heightened awareness of such moronic behaviour. I'll have a further dig around to see if there's anything tangible. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) and Nobeljeff (talk)

This article is about yet another scientist, James Chadwick is the man who discovered the neutron. In 1932, with a laboratory instrument literally made from string and sealing wax. The group photo of the Cavendish Lab staff that year had eight Nobel Prize winners sitting in the front row. Rutherford. Thomson. Kapitza. Cockcroft. Blackett. And then there was the neutron. Chadwick found it, measured it, weighed it. Within just a few years neutrons would be the key ingredient in a scientific endeavour on an unprecedented scale. And Chadwick played a key part in all of this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article at A-class per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example Pollard being his student, do not appear to be sourced in the text
  • Why bold Chadwick's name in Notes?
  • FN46: page?
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the emboldened names in the papers. Someone has been going around creating DOI templates for famous papers. So the links to Chadwick appear bold in his own article. I like to have the original papers linked in the scientific articles so readers can see them for themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 61[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article covers the first highway to connect Thunder Bay to the outside world, in this case, Duluth, Minnesota. The bridge between Canada and the U.S. was done without government approval, but despite that, was officially opened by both governments. I feel this route has some interesting history, and is well written/comprehensive; this merits the star in my eyes. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article just needs someone to verify that the references are fine. Tom (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Welcome back. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page ... the reviewers asked you to check the references last time. Have you checked to make sure the references support the statements in the text, without any close paraphrasing? - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have done so. Tom (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no objections, given the references check out. Historical writing tends to be on the clunky side, and this article isn't totally immune, but I'm not objecting based on that. It's a very professional article its editors can be proud of. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa[edit]

Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the floral emblem of the state of Victoria. I think it came together well and invite folks to let us know what else we (i.e. me and Melburnian can fix..pronto-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment[edit]

Is there some exception with plants regarding the use of the single quotemarks? They shouldn't be double? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

when writing about plant cultivars we'd generally write ones that hadn't been PBR'ed with single quotes and ones that had with double quotes, but I think that is not a general rule. Have seen both here, but single quotes seem to be preferred - see Wikipedia:NCFLORA#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_names Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the exception is mentioned at MOS:QUOTEMARKS (Double or single). --Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another driveby: in the taxonomy section there's this sentence: 'A year later, he described E. nivalis, which he described as an "exceedingly beautiful species", from specimens growing in Loddiges nursery.' This uses "described" twice in different senses of the word, which is awkward and possibly confusing. Can the second use of the word be replaced, one way or another? Off the top of my head "characterized as" or "mentioned as" would be plausible, but neither of them sounds quite right. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed to "wrote of" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


  • File:Epacris_impressa_-_Paxton.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A few comments from CorinneSD[edit]

First, the article is quite well-written as it is. I made a few minor copy-edits which you will see. I have just a few questions:

Your copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

1) Toward the end of the section Epacris impressa#Description are the following sentences:

"Within the corolla is a central style with the stigma at the apex and ovary at the base, where the nectar is also located. Different colour forms are often observed growing near each other. The fruit is a 5-locule capsule that is about 3.5 mm (0.14 in) in diameter. It is globular in shape, sometimes with one end flattened, and the style is persistent."

When I saw "and the style is persistent", I figured you meant the shape of the fruit, or capsule, but it could be a little confusing to readers who are not botanists. I may be wrong, but I think this is a different meaning from the first use of "style". Is there any way you could use a different word for the second instance (if it does in fact mean something different from the first use)?

Both instances of the word "style" refer to the floral element so I combined the two mentions to reduce confusion.--Melburnian (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in the section Epacris impressa#Taxonomy is the following sentence:

"Prolific botanist Robert Brown described Epacris ruscifolia in his 1810 work Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van Diemen alongside E. impressa".

I wonder about including the adjective "prolific" here. It doesn't relate to anything else in that sentence or paragraph. No adjective before "botanist" would be all right, but if you want to use one, I think it would be more interesting for the average reader to give his nationality.

I ended up removing 'prolific' as (although he was prolific) it is not particularly germane to this article and looks odd when combined with his nationality... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

3) Also in the second paragraph in "Taxonomy" are the following sentences:

"John Lindley described Epacris tomentosa from plant specimens collected during the third expedition of Thomas Mitchell in 1838. Found on Mount William in the Grampians, it was described as "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris with large, curved, purple flowers, allied to E. grandiflora but much handsomer".

This is similar to the problem mentioned above by Nihiltres regarding E. nivalis later in this paragraph. You have the word "described" twice but with different meanings. (I believe the first instance is a botanists' term meaning something like "described for the first time".) In the first sentence you write, "John Lindley described...." Then in the second sentence, you switch to passive voice and say, "it was described as", with a detailed description full of admiration. If that is all right with you, then it can stay. I tried to figure out a way to change it so that you have Lindley saying this rather than the passive voice "it was described as", without making the first sentence longer, but haven't yet.

I changed it to ...Mitchell remarked that it was "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris..., as it was Mitchell's remark in the account of his expedition, rather than Lindley's description, the latter appearing as a footnote in that work.--Melburnian (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

4) The last sentence of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy" is:

"He classified plants collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains as E. impressa as a separate species E. reclinata".

This is a little confusing. I think it means:

He classified plants [that had been] collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains [and that Cunningham had identified] as E. impressa and identified them as a separate species E. reclinata.

If I am correct, then I think many readers would have trouble gleaning all this meaning from that sentence. I think some words need to be added to the sentence to fill it out and make the meaning clear. If I am wrong in my guess as to what it means, then that just supports my feeling that the sentence needs clarification.

You are indeed correct and I have tweaked it to try and make it unambiguous... 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the problem is completely cleared up. I will look at it again a little later today. CorinneSD (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I re-worded two sentences in this paragraph to improve flow and clarity.
they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

5) Regarding spelling: You've got "south-east" in the first paragraph in the lead and "south-eastern New South Wales" in the fourth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy. I thought "southeast" was one word and "southeastern" was one word.

I removed the hyphen.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

6) Regarding measurements: I see you used the conversion template for measurements early in the article. I've exchanged ideas with Sminthopsis84 on this. I know metric measurements are expressed in decimals (ml., centimeters, meters, kilometers), but inches and feet are not usually expressed in decimals. For readers (like me) who are used to inches and feet, a decimal such as 0.3 inch or 2.5 inches means very little. We can't get a mental picture of the size of the plant, length of stem or leaves, etc. Is there a way to calculate the inches measurements so that they are expressed as 1/8 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/3 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch, 1-1/2 inch, etc., and feet so that they are 1'6", 2'8", etc., and delete the decimal that came out of the conversion template? – CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See, funny you should say that, as that is what I did initially at FAC (see Banksia ericifolia) before (I recall) folks suggesting different. I am morethan happy to dispense with decimal places for imperial units...will have a look round and see if/when we discussed it...I have now asked at MOS as I am intrigued myself.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
See User talk:Sminthopsis84#Anise. CorinneSD (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
hmmm, ok - it's late here and I think I will sleep on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)I must admit I do prefer fractions...amused there is "6 ft 7 in"..I can't look at that and not be reminded of Mae West's famous quip when meeting a 6 ft 7 in cowboy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(See some additional comments, interspersed above.) The fifth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy begins:
"In his 1972 publication A Handbook to Plants in Victoria, Victorian botanist Jim Willis..."
Even though you've got "Victoria" in the title of the book A Handbook to Plants in Victoria there, the adjective "Victorian" before a name often means "from the Victorian age". I don't think you mean that because he published a book in 1972. You probably mean that he is/was from the province/state of Victoria in Australia (and Australians would be more likely to immediately associate "Victorian" with "from Victoria"). Do you really need to say that he was from Victoria? I don't think it's necessary. I think just "botanist" is enough, or perhaps "Australian botanist". The nationality would be an interesting bit of information for non-Australians. CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to "Australian botanist".--Melburnian (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thief II: The Metal Age[edit]

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

One month after Thief: The Dark Project's commercially and critically successful debut, Looking Glass Studios started working on Thief II: The Metal Age. Eidos Interactive returned to publish the game, and it was produced—in what seems to have been a first for Looking Glass—almost entirely on schedule. Looking Glass stripped down the game's design to focus exclusively on stealth, partly at the request of their fan community. Unfortunately, a string of disastrous business mistakes had left Eidos and Looking Glass hemorrhaging money. Thief II was a success, but Looking Glass closed a few months after its release, after a buyout deal with Eidos fell through.

I started to overhaul this page back in April, as part of my push for the Looking Glass Studios video games GT. I realized a number of weeks ago that it was probably near FA quality, and that upgrading the GT to a FT wasn't unrealistic. So, hot on the heels of Flight Unlimited II's promotion, I present you with another nomination. I hope this one will be as trouble-free as my last, but I'll be on hand to address any concerns raised below. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

I feel bad that my FAC has drummed up two reviews and yours none, even though mine is more recent. I'll review this later today; I just want to crank out some work on a non-video-game article I'll be putting up at GAN soon. At first glance, this looks high-quality, although Gameplay's a little short and summative. Tezero (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1972-73 American television sitcom Temperatures Rising. I have greatly expanded the text of this article and believe that it now features a fairly comprehensive history of the series. I want to upgrade this to FA level. Please offer any suggestions you can to improve it. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Freedom from Want (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the four paintings in a famous painting series by Norman Rockwell. It has sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic content to merit consideration here. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified WP:HUMAN RIGHTS, WP:VISUALARTS, WP:HOLIDAY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have notified the GA2 reviewer Wehwalt.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a California-bred racehorse who won this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes, and his owners, all from humble roots and with interesting personalities. The horse is very popular, since the article's creation in March, it has had over 500,000 hits. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Go Phightins!

I'll get the ball rolling here for all those watching with popcorn as per Montanabw's suggestions Face-smile.svg.

  • "California Chrome was the first foal of his dam, Love the Chase, who was injured giving birth to him, requiring the mare and foal to stay in a stall for a month while she underwent medical treatment." - sounds kind of "run-on/splicey" to me. Could this possibly be split into two sentences, or reworded such that dam becomes the appositive rather than Love the Chase? Not a huge deal; just struck me as awkward when reading.
  • Reworded. Better? --MTBW
  • "California Chrome was sent to the Shermans' training stable as a two-year-old, selected for its reputation for patiently developing young horses." - the second part here is bothering me ... selected for its reputation comes immediately after the part about the horse being two years old, not after Shermans' training stable, about which it is talking. How about " ... was sent to the Shermans' training stable, which was selected for its reputation for patiently developing young horses, when he was two years old" or similar?
  • Done --MTBW
  • "As early as the Santa Anita Derby, dedicated fan base, who came to be known as "Chromies", actively supported California Chrome, who was called "the people's horse"." That's a crap-load of commas and whatnot. Can it be simplified? "As early as the Santa Anita Derby, a dedicated fan base known as "Chromies" actively supported California Chrome, who was called "the people's horse." or similar?
  • I like your suggestion and killed a comma, but a minor nuance is that they weren't called "Chromies" at the SA Derby yet, the nickname appeared closer to the Kentucky Derby, hence the "came to be known" bit - I'm open to further comments to fix this, though. --MTBW
  • "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby, having won his previous four races by a combined total of 24 1⁄4 lengths, he was the morning line favorite." Start the new paragraph by using his name rather than a pronoun.
  • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "But taking the lead in the homestretch, he was ahead by five lengths until Espinoza eased him up for the final 70 yards (64 m) to not over-exert him, and he won by 1 3⁄4 lengths." This sentence is confusing to me ... so Chrome took the lead during the homestretch and was ahead by five lengths, and then he slowed into the finish so he would not be exerted? If so, then how about something like - "After taking the lead during the homestretch, he was ahead by five lengths until Espinoza eased him up for the final 70 yards to avoid over-exerting him; ultimately, he won by 134 lengths" or similar?
  • Yup, exactly. The jockey slowed him down on purpose (and was so sure he won that he stood up in his stirrups and saluted with the whip BEFORE crossing the finish line!) I took most of your suggested wording and tweaked a couple other things. Better? --MTBW
  • "...and fifth in the world in the World's Best Racehorse Rankings in their June 12, 2014, listing" I am sorry; that's too many "ins" for one sentence ... can we remove one or two?
  • Killed some "ins" and reworded slightly. Better? --MTBW
  • I am to the end of the lead, and will pick up this review in the near future, but wanted to get the ball rolling for you. Go Phightins! 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think I addresssed your questions - at least parttly - and I appreciate any more comments, follow up, and further review.. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

  • Not sure why " Both the mare and foal were required to stay in a stall for a month while she underwent medical treatment, during which California Chrome imprinted on humans owing to the extra attention he received from people who came by to treat his dam several times a day. His people-focused attitude was later viewed as a useful trait in his training as a racehorse." is really essential to lead. It's a lot more wordy than I think you really need to be. Perhaps trim it a bit?
    • Touched up some, if not enough, I am open to HOW to reword or trim; I've gotten a bit bleary-eyed and tunnel-visioned with this article after living with it since early April. You may be right that it isn't crucial, but that said, his behavior and quirks are part of the story, and (other than the flehmen response thing) mostly seem to be linked to his fondness for people. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby" -can you add the date or month?
    • Rephrased, scratched my head a bit before putting date at end of sentence. Better? --MTBW
  • "After her win, Steve Coburn and Perry Martin became her official owners." -when was this?
    • Added date of race. Don't have date of actual purchase. Better? --MTBW
  • Curious as to what "horse cookies" are. An article on them would be great or a footnote explaining what they are might be useful. I gather they're not Oreos or Jammy Dodgers LOL.
    • Actually, they are pretty close! LOL! [1] But I'll add more to the note that's already at the end of the sentence. Better? Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Observers have commented that California Chrome appears to be a very intelligent horse.. this paragraph shold probably go under a sub section title Behaviour as it needs too specific to really be general background.
    • OK. --MTBW
  • "Are the details like 28th anniversary and all that really essential? Some of the info given seems a bit more detailed than needed for the owners. Some of the info and quotes read like something out of a horse magazine rather than an encyclopedia article like " "[Coburn] was at the heat of the moment. And don't forget, he's a fairly new owner. Sometimes the emotions get in front of you ... He hasn't been in the game long and hasn't had any bad luck." ". and "Art Sherman liked the enthusiasm of Martin and Coburn,[22] but when Martin emailed his plan for which races California Chrome should run in to reach the Kentucky Derby, Sherman was dubious. Nonetheless, after the horse won the Preakness, Alan Sherman stated, "[Martin] mapped out a trail for this horse; it's actually worked to a 'T', so it's kinda amazing."[25] Art Sherman downplays his role in training California Chrome, saying "This horse is my California rock star. I'm just his manager."[60]" It reads as too wordy for an encyclopedia article I think which should really be stripped down to the essentials and get straight to the point.
    • I'd like to maybe move this bit to talk and discuss details of how to chop it; I agree that there probably is some cruft in here, as I was updating the article in real time as it developed. That said, the people story is a big deal, but per BIO1E, other than Art Sherman, these people are probably not likely to warrant their own WP article. It's virtually unheard of for all that stuff to have come together - first time breeders, all but first time owners, predict they had a Derby horse practically from birth and then win it, the huge fan base (even Secretariat didn't have people showing up wearing tinfoil and tattoos) and so on. The story here is basically that Coburn shoots his mouth off a lot but the Martins are the brains of the operation but so press-shy that I think they've had maybe one TV interview, two at most. Coburn's Belmont outburst (on National television) was a really big deal and the press is still ranting about it. --MTBW
    • I chopped the anniversary thing but it mattered at the time because Coburn said (also on national TV) at the Preakness that the Martins avoided the Preakness because they were pissed at how they got treated at the Derby when they said is was just their anniversary... So let's workshop that bit --MTBW
  • "Sherman viewed the colt's "rough trips" in perspective" -not sure what you mean here
    • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "In December, California Chrome was switched to a new type of horseshoe" -perhaps "began wearing a new type of horseshoe" would fit better here?
    • OK. --MTBW
  • "It may have been a contributing factor to California Chrome's subsequent series of wins." -according to whom?
    • Sources got mixed up in a rewrite, put the proper source that attributes the streak to the shoes at the end of the sentence. Better? --MTBW
Racing history
  • "Sherman was impressed with Espinoza's riding, and Espinoza was impressed " -rep of impressed.
    • Agree it's awk, do you have a suggested rewording for the mutual admiration society that developed? Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "assigned 124 pounds" -I gather this is common horse terminology but I'm not quite sure what it means. Given a weight classification or was weighed at that and classified as such or what?
    • It's a Handicap, but I wikilinked to impost because the races in question were not called handicaps and I didn't want to create even more confusion. The weight is how much the horse carried on its back. Jockey and saddle plus any extra weight needed to even out the horses -better ones get more weight. At first use, I reworded a couple of times to "He was one of four horses to carry 120 pounds (54 kg), the highest impost assigned in the race..." Is that better? (Open to further ways to improve so long as we don't have a digression into what a handicap race is, except that a Maiden special weight isn't technically a handicap... you get the idea... ) --MTBW
  • "In a post-race press interview, Sherman said he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby: "I said a little prayer and it came true, I said I hope he's another Swaps." Trainer Dale Romans, who had asserted that California Chrome had no chance to win, said, "I was very, very wrong ... We might have just seen a super horse and a super trainer. You don't fake your way to the winner's circle at the Kentucky Derby."[120] Dallas Stewart later admitted, "Oh, yeah, I was wrong."[10" -not sure you need this here, "In a post-race press interview, Sherman stated that he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby and prayed for success" should do.
    • I chopped the Sherman bit. Dale Romans was one of the biggest naysayers and is one of the most famous trainers in the country, so admitting he was wrong was sort of a big deal; people who follow the sport know who he is and why his quote was selected. I chopped Stewart, though seeing him eat crow was rather satisfying because he was such a jerk before the race. --MTBW
  • "California Chrome shipped via air to Baltimore for the 2014 Preakness Stakes" -when was this?
    • About a week out. Does it matter? --MTBW
I think so, yeah, because it's really very soon afterwards and readers would probably want an indication of timeline.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, done. That said, there was only two weeks between the two races, so they sort of split the difference. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a rather a lot of quotes towards the end of Preakness Stakes which I'm not sure are all essential.
    • I trimmed some. Bob Baffert is probably the most famous race horse trainer in the USA, so him throwing in the towel was big deal, but I trimmed some of his stuff too. Better? --MTBW
  • ""Hey listen, we'll be here to fight another day, I'm just happy he's all in one piece." -not really needed.
    • Yeah, OK, but it's charming.  ;-) --MTBW

I gather that the guidelines for horse articles state that this should go in the bottom section. It's just the history background of the horse breeding lines I'd probably expect to see first in the background section.

    • Pedigree charts are always at the bottom. Not all articles have the detailed narrative, but when reading the details it helps to have the pedigree right there to refer to, and also, to put all that analysis in the "background" section up at the top would make the casual readers' eyes glaze over. (Kind of like the "begats" in Genesis!) Usually the background section has a short summary about the sire and dam's personal history, as here. The stuff of primary interest to horse aficionados can go a bit farther down because they will dig for it!  ;-) Better?--MTBW
  • Why is ref 51 all in lower casing?
    • Fixed --MTBW

Overall it's very informative and obviously has had a lot of effort and love go into it, but IMO it's too informative and long. 135kb is very long for an article on a relatively young racehorse. It contains a lot of details which I don't think anybody other than a "Chromie" would want to know. A lot of the details read a little like a magazine story on the horse; a lot of the quotes don't really help this. I understand that you'd be reluctant to condense it down too much but I think you could go through the article and pay attention primarily to giving the reader the basic facts and strip down anything which you think might detract from it or not be essential this would be an immediate improvement. Look at any paragraph and think how you might relay the same info in less words and detail and eliminate anything which you think might affect the reader getting a basic grasp of what is being said. I say this as in some sections there is so much detail on what the trainers said and did etc that I had to double check again and try to glean from it what the horse did and what happened. I'd lean towards support if you could strip it down a bit and make it more concise. I think you could get it down to 100kb without too much difficulty, certainly 120kb. If not possible, then anything you can do to shorten it and make it more concise without losing the important facts would be an improvement. If you're not convinced that it needs trimming feel free to ask the opinion of Eric or anybody else, it might just be me!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I agree that this is a bit bloated, but compare to Mucho Macho Man, which passed FAC a few months back. It's hard for me to determine precisely what to trim at this point, as noted, I've just become bleary-eyed. Your idea of trimming quotes is a good one, I'm open to other ideas. Maybe give me 24 hours and then take a look. That said, given American race horse careers, unless something really odd happens, (Or Coburn shoots his mouth off again in an even more colorful fashion) the rest of his racing career is apt to be summed up as "at the end of his three year old season, he did or didn't win the Breeders' Cup Classic and Horse of the Year. In his four year old season, he won races X,Y, and Z and then his owners retired him to stud, syndicating him for X million dollars." It's actually rare for a Derby-winning stallion to run past his 4-year old year - too much money to be made in the breeding shed. --MTBW
  • Follow up: did some chopping, we are using different measurement tools, but using the User:Dr_pda/prosesize javascript tool, I've trimmed readable prose from 49K to 46K which was a chop of about 500 words, mostly quotations. Let me know if you have some areas you'd like me to scrutinize further. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still think you could lose another 10 kb without too much difficulty though. I'll give it a read again later this week and try to be more specific with what I think could be cut. The content is certainly all there for FA anyway but my feeling is that as an encyclopedia article it needs to be more punchy and concise. On raw kb it's nearly twice the length of your Macho Man article! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of looking at quotations was a good one and I saw several that were chopable. Point me to other places where your eyes glazed over and I'll focus in. MMM was pretty cool, but he basically won one really big race but with a cool back story. CC won six in a row with an even quirkier back story. Montanabw(talk) 07:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what could be removed then:

  • ""Fans are coming out of nowhere", said Perry Martin."
  • Chopped--MTBW
  • "Perry Martin has an MBA,[11] a degree in applied physics from Michigan Technological University,[31] and an advanced degree in solid state physics from the University of Illinois-Chicago.[25] Denise Martin is MTL's senior chemist, managing the company's fatigue testing and thermal analytics.[24] They celebrated their 28th anniversary on the weekend of the Preakness, thus missing seeing the race live.[32] They married in 1986,[32] and moved to California in 1987, where Perry Martin was employed as a metallurgist by the Air Force and Denise briefly job shadowed a racehorse trainer in the Sacramento area.[25] Perry Martin performed testing and analysis work, including work on Air Force weapons systems.[33] He wrote the Electronic Failure Analysis Handbook, published by McGraw-Hill in 1999.[34]

Steve Coburn, characterized by the media as "loquacious",[35][36] describes himself and his wife as "just everyday people".[21][24] He grew up in central California and was familiar with horses. He worked herding cattle at a feedlot,[11] participated in rodeos, and worked at some ranching jobs.[37] He now is a press operator for a company that makes magnetic strips.[22] Carolyn Coburn retired in March 2014 from a career working in payroll in the health care industry.[24] Carolyn introduced Steve to horse racing, and when he was looking for a tax write-off, she encouraged him to buy into a racing syndicate instead of purchasing a small airplane"

The article is about the horse not the owners. While some very briefly would be relevant, I'd create articles on them and remove all of this or trim to barely a sentence or two. I'd create an article on DAP Racing and include their bios in it if you think they're not notable enough individually. This was the most problematic part for me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've heard this mentioned by multiple reviewers, and I DO see your point to some extent, but as I have also fought and lost battles on the drama boards in BIO1E land, and I am pretty certain that the deletionist warriors would not allow a stand-alone article to exist. If they win the Oaks in two years with 'Chrome's little sister, then we probably could justify it. But at the moment, given that the horse is their ONLY race horse and the first horse they've ever bred, it's actually kind of difficult to separate the people from their critter. All that said, we can chat about it some more and see if we can reach a solution. Perhaps I will also post at WP horse racing and see what folks there think. The project's notability criteria for horses is winning a grade 1 race, for trainers and jockeys it's a little more; Sherman becomes notable enough for his own article for both 'Chrome plus his connection to Swaps on top of a 50+ year career. --MTBW
Reading a horse article though I don't care when the owners got married!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I trimmed this a little, per comment above, I am concerned that the BIO1E police would not consider these folks "notable." I've fought and lost a couple of these, I can just hear them now saying "merge to California Chrome." The owners are a big part of this story, but not as big as Claiborne Farm. (Few racehorses have owners notable as owners, unless for other reasons, such as, for example, Jim Rome --MTBW
  • "Art Sherman's assistant is his son, Alan,[57] who is also a licensed trainer.[23] Alan was a jockey for three years in the 1980s until, as he put it, "I ate my way out of that job." As a jockey, he rode in southern California for trainers such as Charlie Whittingham and won over a million dollars in purse money, while closely observing how his employers trained their horses, anticipating that some day he too would become a trainer. Rather than run an independent training stable like his brother Steve, Alan has worked with his father since 1991." - Could be trimmed to "Art Sherman's assistant is his son, Alan, a licensed trainer who was a jockey for three years in the 1980s". Merge with previous paragraph.
    • Another BIO1E problem. In theory, some of that could go into the Art Sherman article, but as Alan Sherman has basically let his dad take all the credit while, especially now, he is doing most of the work, I'm not quite sure what to do, want to be sure credit is given where credit is due - somehow, the guy definitely deserves more than just a passing, "is the assistant." Thoughts? --MTBW
  • "Art Sherman liked the enthusiasm of Martin and Coburn,[22] but when Martin emailed his "Road to the Kentucky Derby" plan outlining which races California Chrome should run, Sherman was dubious. Later, Alan Sherman stated, "[Martin] mapped out a trail for this horse; it's actually worked to a 'T', so it's kinda amazing."[25] Art Sherman downplays his role in training California Chrome, saying "This horse is my California rock star. I'm just his manager."[59]" None of this is really essential or that encyclopedic.
    • That I think should - mostly - be kept, though I'm open to streamlining the prose. The email is a big part of the story - that a first time breeder creates a plan and it happens. Really almost Twilight Zone-ish. --MTBW
  • "Steve Coburn said he had a dream not long before California Chrome's birth that the foal would be a colt with four white feet and a blaze.[43] California Chrome was relatively large for a newborn horse, weighing 137 pounds (62 kg). Martin described the foal as "running circles around Momma" within two hours of birth.[44" -trim to simply "California Chrome was relatively large for a newborn horse, weighing 137 pounds (62 kg)."
    • The dream thing is a part of the horse's story, it was out there over and over again. Explained why the other is in there. The dam was injured, but the foal was fine and athletic from early on. Rephrased it a bit though. --MTBW
  • " Alan Sherman said, "My jaw dropped",[86] while Art Sherman joked, "I'm glad I'm training at Los Alamitos, because he looked like a 350 [yard] horse coming out of the gate",[87] a reference to Quarter Horse racing distances. Espinoza simply remarked, "I wanted to let him enjoy his race,"[88] later adding, "I wanted to see if he [could] go wire to wire ... that was the day I found out how much he loves to run."[7" -not really encyclopedic
    • ."Encyclopedic" doesn't have to mean "boring." The truth was that the horse really blew away the field and even shocked his trainers. But to say "he blew away the field and shocked his trainers with his speed" would be WP:SYNTH. So let them tell the story and the readers can draw their own conclusions ;-)--MTBW
  • "Once on the ground, their van had a police escort from the airport to the track.[120] Just as before the Derby, the horse galloped on the Pimlico track, but had no timed workouts.[121][122] Delgado, who had previously ridden and trained in Maryland, compared the long and narrow Pimlico oval favorably to the colt's home track at Los Alamitos.[123] Sherman did not like that the horse had to run again with only a two-week break, but was confident that California Chrome was eating well, had gained back any weight he had lost running the Derby, plus had gained another 35 pounds (16 kg) by Preakness day.[121] When he arrived at Pimlico to prepare for the Preakness, the management at that track welcomed him with two saddlecloths for his workouts, one with the "Califorina" misspelling and the other with the correct spelling,[109] because the misspelled cloth was starting to be viewed as a good luck token.[110]

News stories prior to the Preakness discussed the relatively slow pace of the Derby and the low Beyer Speed Figure of 97 earned by California Chrome in his win, saying the fresh "speed horses" who had not run in the Derby would challenge him over the shorter distance of the Preakness. Manny Azpurua, 85-year-old trainer of new rival Social Inclusion, who ran third in the Wood Memorial, asserted that the Preakness field would be stronger than the Derby field, saying, "California Chrome has to prove again he's the best 3-year-old."[124][125] Sherman responded, "He's got enough lick that he can stay with any horse in the race. He likes a target to run at."[126] California Chrome was assigned the number three post position and was the morning line odds-on favorite at 3–5.[124] Sherman was not troubled by the inside spot.[127] Followers noted that Secretariat had also run the 1973 Preakness Stakes from the number three post.[128] Owner Coburn was optimistic: "One race at a time, but I'm still thinking Triple Crown."[129] The Thursday before the race, California Chrome was observed coughing four times after his morning gallop, prompting media speculation about his health. He had a small blister in his throat, which he also had prior to the Kentucky Derby, both times treated with a glycerine throat wash. When the condition first appeared in Kentucky, Alan Sherman stated that a veterinarian had checked the horse and performed blood work; other than the "itchy" throat, he was in good health.[130] The intense press attention paid to the relatively minor issue was dismissively dubbed "throat-gate" by sportswriter Bill Dwyre of the Los Angeles Times.[131]" I'd condense all of this down to:

"Once on the ground, their van had a police escort from the airport to the track.[120] Just as before the Derby, the horse galloped on the Pimlico track, but had no timed workouts. Sherman did not like that the horse had to run again with only a two-week break, but was confident that California Chrome was eating well, had gained back any weight he had lost running the Derby, plus had gained another 35 pounds (16 kg) by Preakness day.[121] When he arrived at Pimlico to prepare for the Preakness, the management at that track welcomed him with two saddlecloths for his workouts, one with the "Califorina" misspelling and the other with the correct spelling,[109] because the misspelled cloth was starting to be viewed as a good luck token.[110]

California Chrome was assigned the number three post position and was the morning line odds-on favorite at 3–5.[124] Sherman was not troubled by the inside spot.[127] Followers noted that Secretariat had also run the 1973 Preakness Stakes from the number three post. California Chrome was observed coughing four times after his morning gallop, prompting media speculation about his health. He had a small blister in his throat, which he also had prior to the Kentucky Derby; it was treated with a glycerine throat wash. The intense press attention paid to the relatively minor issue was dismissively dubbed "throat-gate" by sportswriter Bill Dwyre of the Los Angeles Times."

    • Tightened some, not quite as much as you have, but chopped several quotes. Better? --MTBW
  • "Sherman said California Chrome was "tired" after the race but that he would be "fine" for the Belmont. " -not really needed.
    • Hmm. Debatable. Rephrased a little to tighten, but the point is that he probably didn't lose the Belmont because he was tired out. Thoughts? -MTBW
  • "California Chrome galloped daily for up to 2 miles (3.2 km) and Delgado commented, "I can tell you he loves this track, and I don't see him (having) any problem getting a mile and a half."[150] Alan Sherman commented on California Chrome's conditioning: "He's never taken a step back, he just keeps getting better and better and improving. It's kind of scary, really." He added, "This horse has just taken us on the ride of our lives."[151] Fisher flew to New York to put on a new set of horseshoes,[77] and Espinoza arrived to give the colt a short workout known as a "breeze", on May 31. Horse and rider were greeted by a large contingent of fans and press at about 6:30 a.m., and ran a half-mile (0.80 km) officially clocked at 47.69 seconds, a time described as "sharp" by the press, and "exactly what we wanted" by Alan Sherman. A clocker for the Daily Racing Form stated, "He's going to be tough to beat. I think we're going to have a Triple Crown winner."[152]" -could trim to:

"California Chrome galloped daily for up to 2 miles (3.2 km) and Delgado commented, "I can tell you he loves this track, and I don't see him (having) any problem getting a mile and a half."[150] Horse and rider were greeted by a large contingent of fans and press at about 6:30 a.m. The horse ran a half-mile (0.80 km) in a brisk 47.69 seconds, leading the clocker for the Daily Racing Form to state, "He's going to be tough to beat. I think we're going to have a Triple Crown winner."[152]

    • He galloped daily where zillions of press watched, it was only at the breeze with Espinoza that kazillions of fans showed up to. But trimming and tightening some. --MTBW
  • "Eleven horses entered the Belmont Stakes, and California Chrome drew post position 2, which was also the post position of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont.[154] Ride On Curlin and General a Rod also entered;[h] these were the only other horses besides California Chrome to contest all three legs of the Triple Crown. Returning from the Kentucky Derby, having skipped the Preakness, were Commanding Curve, who was second in the Derby, along with Wicked Strong, Medal Count, and Samraat. "New Shooters" who had not run in either of the previous Triple Crown races included Tonalist, Commissioner, Matterhorn, and Matuszak.[155] Tonalist and Commissioner had run first and second at Belmont Park in the Peter Pan Stakes on May 10.[136] Matterhorn had run fourth in that race.[155] Statisticians noted that no Triple Crown-winning horse had competed against more than seven other horses in the Belmont, and only two, Seattle Slew and Citation, had faced that many.[156]

Prior to the race, the trainer of Wicked Strong, stated, "One of our horses will have to run the race of his life, and California Chrome is going to have to throw in a clunker."[157] Laura Hillenbrand, author of Seabiscuit: An American Legend, noting the "odd cast of characters around him," was a supporter.[110] Anticipating the possibility of a Triple Crown champion, several people connected to the last three Triple Crown winners announced plans to be at the Belmont, including 92-year-old Penny Chenery, owner of Secretariat; Patrice Wolfson, who co-owned Affirmed; and some of Seattle Slew's connections—trainer Billy Turner and co-owner Jim Hill. The jockeys of the three past winners, Steve Cauthen, Jean Cruguet, and Ron Turcotte, also announced they would attend. Cauthen, jockey of Affirmed, stated, "This horse has got a great chance of pulling it off," but added, "you never know, that's why they have to run the race."[158]" -this is really excessive wording I think I'd trim to:

"Eleven horses entered the Belmont Stakes, and California Chrome drew post position 2, which was also the post position of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont.[154] Ride On Curlin and General a Rod also entered;[h] these were the only other horses besides California Chrome to contest all three legs of the Triple Crown. Anticipating the possibility of a Triple Crown champion, several people connected to the last three Triple Crown winners announced plans to be at the Belmont, including 92-year-old Penny Chenery, owner of Secretariat; Patrice Wolfson, who co-owned Affirmed; and some of Seattle Slew's connections—trainer Billy Turner and co-owner Jim Hill. The jockeys of the three past winners, Steve Cauthen, Jean Cruguet, and Ron Turcotte, also announced they would attend. Cauthen, jockey of Affirmed, stated, "This horse has got a great chance of pulling it off," but added, "you never know, that's why they have to run the race."[158]"

    • Chopped some of that, kept what I think was relevant. It was one of the "new shooters" who won (prompting Coburn's rant) and another who stepped on Chrome at the start. Take a look. --MTBW
  • "Sherman was relieved that the tendon injury was superficial, and when asked if the heel injury had cost the horse a chance to win, replied, "It couldn't have helped him any."[162] Sherman explained that he saw the horse throw his head up in the homestretch and knew that something was not right. He later speculated that the sand and dirt of the racetrack were causing pain in the open wound.[164] The following day, Sherman assured the press that both injuries would heal up, and that the heel injury was, luckily, not a quarter crack in the hoof.[165]" - could trim to

"Sherman speculated that the sand and dirt of the racetrack were causing pain in the open wound, and knew that something wasn't right when he saw the horse throw his head up in the homestretch. The following day, he assured the press that both injuries would heal up, and that the heel injury was, luckily, not a quarter crack in the hoof.[165]"

    • Diced and chopped a little, reworded. Better? --MTBW

That should be the bulk of it. If you can respond to most of those the article should read and flow a lot better I think without losing anything really vital. I'll support once it is condensed down further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Dr. Blofeld: I'm whacking at the material, but on the ownership sections, maybe let's take that to the FAC talk and sort out if we have grounds to make it an independent article per my comments above. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: now at 44 kB (7700 words). per Dr. pda tool. Was 49K. Have chopped about 700-800 words. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's starting to look better. Sure, discuss that on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted the question of a spinoff to DAP racing at WP:Horse racing. If you can think of some other appropriate WP:GNG venues that aren't haunted by trolls, let me know. I'm very reluctant to chop too much unless it can be moved without being viewed as a Fork or a BIO1E thing. Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thanks for a detailed, informative article. A few comments for now:


  • I suggest a new paragraph for "When two years old", - I thought it was still about the owners.
    • Reworded; already am at four paragrpahs. Better? --MTBW
      • yes --GA


  • I don't like any image directly under a heading, and I think this one, showing the grown horse, would fit better in the next para about behaviour.
    • Blofeld just made me add a subheader, it will wind up under a third level heading now if I move it. Can you live with it where it's at? --MTBW
      • It's not a question of life and death, but the image of the grown horse - while he is just born - is strange, also traditional me still follows former imagelocation ideas. --GA
        • No baby pics are available with a free license. This one is a photo of the horse showing his friendly character; it's actually a crop of File:CalChrome and MD Gov.jpg but I chopped out the politicians, who needs 'em?  ;-) I can't really say in the caption, "see how friendly this horse is" because that's OR, but if a picture is worth 1000 words... ;-) I DID add some more dates. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I moved it bit, revert if you don't like it ---GA
            • It's OK. If someone moves is back, that's OK too. As they say, "Whatever" ;-) --MTBW
a smiling elderly man in a gray suit, wearing sunglasses
Art Sherman, 2014
  • I tried to move Art the same way, and got his son right below (left) to look "inward". For the small pics, I suggest to just mention the year, not the race. Especially the son could be anywhere. Btw: "alt=a smiling elderly man" made me smile ;) ----GA


  • I almost feel that the owners deserve their own article. (Love DAP)
    • They could, but the WP:BIO1E bandits will probably AfD it. I don't need the drahmahz!  :-P --MTBW
      • with you on that --GA
  • How about dates with the quotes, for people who are not so familiar with race names? In general.
    • Will better wikilinking do the same? I tend to disfavor a wall of dates...? Ah! The quote boxes! OK, done! --MTBW
  • Same for images, in general.
    • Ditto? --MTBW
      • For both the above: linking helps me who can hover and see, - but asking the reader for an extra click is asking a lot. If I see a man, I would like to know if that photo is recent or twenty years old, - but it's also not a question of life and death. --GA
        • Added 2014 to some of the images, does that help? -MBBW
          • yes ---GA
  • The reactions to the Belmont are not easy to understand before we know more about it.
    • I could move the Coburn stuff down to the Belmont section. Give me a bit and see what you think. --MTBW
      • Good idea! --GA
        • Done, Better? --MTBW
          • yes ---GA

Need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See you tomorrow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
back ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Early years

  • An image of the farm would be nice, ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not impossible for me to grab a screenshot, I got File:Lucky Pulpit.jpg 01.png from here and they do have ranch shots. They show the place itself from about 0:20 to 0:53. See anything there worth trying to pull a still shot from? --MTBW
  • "racehorses such as two-time Breeders' Cup Classic winner Tiznow", racehorses such as two-time, what do you think of "racehorses such as Tiznow, a two-time Breeders' Cup Classic winner"?
    • OK. --MTBW
  • It's a bit confusing to me to first read about the 2010 breeding, then about the (failed) 2009, without indication of "previously", then 2014, then dream, then back to born.
    • Put 2009 and 2010 chronologically and threw the rest into a footnote. Better? --MTBW
      • Yes. Consider to move the Lucky Pulpit pic to here, show dad where he's mentioned first, ----GA
                • OK, did so, but now have a left-facing image under a level three header again. Hope you can live with that, as no good way to make 2 paras there, I don't think. (We could toss the "behavior" subheader, though...)--MTBW
  • Can the naming come sooner? Perhaps already in the Background section?
    • He didn't get his "official" name until 2013, just before he raced as a 2-year-old. I clarified the chronology. If you still think that paragraph could go up to the beginning of the background section, I can do it, but it would throw the timeline off - is is OK as is? --MTBW
      • yes ----GA
  • "Because many Thoroughbred trainers are unfamiliar with the Los Alamitos facility, the success of California Chrome, who was conditioned there, created good publicity for the track." - "Because"? not a reason.
    • Clarified. Any better? --MTBW
      • yes ----GA


Barefoot hoof, lateral view. Coronet band (1), walls (2), toe (3), quarter (4), heel (5), bulb (6), P2 (small pastern) (7 (comment: heels are a little bit too low)
A horse hoof that's healthier than the one in the chart above, does NOT have low heels
  • "low heels"?
    • Complex concept, let me think about it. I wish horse hoof was a better article, but I'll put up the photo they use to show you the parts and another one that I took of a healthier hoof. If I explain, perhaps you can help think of better wording: A horse's hoof is, basically, a gigantic fingernail that has to be trimmed periodically and the horseshoes repositioned. (see also farrier). Sometimes the hoof wears or grows unevenly and, on Thoroughbred race horses in particular (for reasons too complicated to explain here) their heels tend to grow slower that their toes, getting out of proportion and balance, which can make them go lame. Short of a dissertation on hoof care here's one, though, help me determine what would improve this and make it clearer. --MTBW
      • Follow up: The news stories all just say variations on "developed low heels." It's so common in Thoroughbreds, I'd be venturing into OR or SYNTH to explain what I know - any thoughts on how I can clarify without rousing the ALLCAPS police? --MTBW
        • What do you think of some of this in the hoof article, then link to the section? Or Wiktionaire? It's not a term I heard before. ----GA
            • Hoof does need work. Let me think about how much time I have. --MTBW

Fine story to the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC) End of round three ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Broken links
    • Fixed two now, will get the rest in a bit. --MBTW
  • Quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, even if cited later
    • Not my read of MOS, these are "scare quotes" indicative of neologisms more than people's direct quotations, but cite to the exact policy/guideline and I'll look at it. --MTBW
  • FN4: which Lexington?
  • Courier-Journal or The Courier-Journal? Herald-Leader or Lexington Herald-Leader? Baltimore Sun or The Baltimore Sun? Paulick Report or The Paulick Report?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Be consistent in when you include locations for publications
    • Tossed them all --MTBW
  • FN19, 39, 98: publisher?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Several LDR cite errors
    • Any places other than something already listed? If more errors than these say so. --MTBW
  • FN75, 160: work?
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • FN79: why include publisher here and not for other newspapers?
    • How about you reword that "FN79 is inconsistent because it lists publisher when others don't?" Tossed --MTBW
  • FN83: verify title spelling
    • You could also say, Title appears to have a typo. Fixed. --MTBW
  • FN82, 84: need endashes not hyphens
    • I think I fixed them but I honestly cannot distinguish a hyphen from an endash in the editing window, so any you want to fix yourself in the future, go for it. (No, still haven't had the cataract surgery yet) --MTBW
  • FN85: this doesn't match other Blood-Horse refs
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Associated Press is an agency not an author
    • Well last FAC I had you were OK with that. And it isn't in the web template. So say what you think will fix it --MTBW
  • FN147: why no accessdate here when other newspapers have them?
    • That's snarky, just say "missing access date." Fixed --MTBW
  • Is Fox Sports a publisher or a work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a snarky question. Just point out the error. I made it a work, but whatever. You could have said "multiple Fox Sports refs - they are inconsistent if work or publisher" --MTBW
  • FN126: use work instead of publisher
    • Fixed --MTBW
    • @Nikkimaria:, I think all done, save for the couple I commented on. Your comments would be easier to fix if they were less cryptic in places and all issued with less condescension and sarcasm. I made a few simple suggestions above and will fix everything that you have flagged or comment further if I think it's fine. Montanabw(talk) 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No condescension or sarcasm was meant: I phrase some points as questions because there are occasionally reasons to format things in a certain way, and I don't know whether you chose to do that deliberately or not. If you check the rest of the FAC page you'll find that I do this on many reviews. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, keep working on those people skills! As for here, did I fix everything that needed to be fixed? Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
          • No. Broken links still there, still a number of LDR errors, still inconsistencies in publication titles (ex. The Courier-Journal in FN 32 and just Courier-Journal in 99), still inconsistencies in italicization (ex. ESPN italicized in 164 but not 139) - generally a number of inconsistencies needing correction. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, when you list the footnotes by number, that helps, because I honestly do not see "a number" of the errors sometimes, and it is truly a vision problem in part when scanning massive amounts of small text. (as my constant two-edit-to-fix-typo pattern shows). I know I fixed two broken links, I'll check the link to see if there are more? I also do not object if you want to make these minor fixes when you see them, might save time. Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Follow up: I think I got all the broken links now, I had to purge your above link and reset, but now I think I have them all. Please advise if otherwise. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Still two dead: "As for Preakness stories..." and "Accidental Favorite". As to the rest, because many of the issues were with consistency rather than accuracy, you will need to check my changes to make sure you're okay with the options I chose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll figure out those (why they don't archive those with redirect links is beyond me, sigh). As for the refs, I really think must of that is an issue of style over substances, so your version is fine. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria:, I think all done now- did wayback links to the two dead ones. Anything else you can find? Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support, my points addressed, and I may have no chance the next weeks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Crisco comments - This will quite likely take me a few days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with the comments above that the owners are likely notable enough for an article. (And I think "Dumb Ass Partners" in a DYK will be quite interesting).
        • If all of you help me if the deletionists attack, I'm in. stay tuned. --MTBW
    • I feel as though the lede could be trimmed a little. It is 662 words, or 3,904 characters with spaces. That is almost 10% of the article. Perhaps tighten the prose and remove information not all that pertinent to Chrome? (For instance, the meaning of DAP and the men's wives also being active in racing)
          • Reasonable. I'll see what I can do. --MTBW
    • All of this information about Lucky Pulpit shouldn't follow a "who" construction, I think.
        • Horses are living creatures not inanimate things, and in particular, named creatures are individuals. I loathe using "it" under such circumstances. I'm actually rather fierce about that.  ;-) --MTBW
    • the Martins - who are they?
      • Perry Martin and his wife, Denise -- where was that unclear? I'll fix. --MTBW
    • Wouldn't there be enough on Love the Chase to have an article on her (and thus save us another hundred words here?)
        • No. California Chrome is her only racing foal, the other two are still babies. We DID create a new article on Lucky Pulpit, however
    • Why the white space in #Behavior?
            • Was trying to keep photo from bleeding into next section. I'm going to move the Lucky Pulpit photo down, now that the other has been tossed, so that issue should be resolved. --MTBW
    • <shudder>Marriage info? Anniversaries? Pretty darn irrelevant to Chrome.
      • Background on owners, but main issue was that Coburn shot off his mouth at the Preakness, saying the Martins were skipping the race because they got pisssed at how rudely they were treated at Churchill Downs, the Martins said it was just their anniversary. But per above, I'll figure out how to trim it. --MTBW
    • Perry Martin performed testing and analysis work, including work on Air Force weapons systems. - redundant to what you already wrote above
        • OK, will fix--MTBW
    • A lot of the information about the owners jumps from place to place. I'd expect their year of marriage to be before the mention of their anniversary, etc.
        • OK, will fix--MTBW
    • Lots of sentences beginning "He" in the paragraph beginning "Steve Coburn"
        • OK, will fix--MTBW
    • Tiznow - worth a redlink?
      • Hm. He should have his own article, won the Breeders' Cup Classic. So yes. --MTBW
    • imprinted - worth linking?
      • Yes, not all people know what that is. --MTBW
    • they had kept horses at Hollywood Park, but when it closed in December 2013, Los Alamitos Race Course picked up some of the racing trainers who had stabled horses there, including Sherman Training Stables. Los Alamitos is better-known as a track for Quarter Horse racing, but took over some of Hollywood Park's Thoroughbred racing dates in 2014. - Some redundancy (implicit) that could be worked through with reworking
        • OK, will fix, open to specific suggestions--MTBW
    • Is his early life and training quite "background" information? In an article on the horse, I'd expect such information to actually be rather important. Section may need to be retitled.
        • "Background" is sort of the standard header for these sections throughout the WP Horse racing articles. Not opposed to something better, but it would be different from the other several thousand horse "biographies" that have this section title. --MTBW
    • Skipping ahead and looking at the nearly incomprehensible (to me, as I my first response remains "who cares", although I know on the logical level why it's necessary for the article) Pedigree section, I wonder why the information on sire and dam cannot be focused here instead.
              • Also standard layout for horse racing biographies, summary of horse's over all life other than race record at start, with pedigree at end. The pedigree analysis may make non-horse-owner's eyes glaze over, which is why it is toward the end, but keep in mind that I have the same reaction to baseball statistics and car engine specifications. --MTBW
    • If he is 4 × 5 to Northern Dancer, then shouldn't this inbreeding be marked in the (considerably more simple to understand) table?
      • Pedigree chart in article only goes back four generations, but can do it once, though possibly confusing without the other ? Thoughts? --MTBW
    • The woman in tinfoil and the man with the ass tattoo... wouldn't they both be WP:UNDUE here, considering how many Chromies there are?
        • Demonstrative examples of particularly dedicated fans! --MTBW
    • grumbling - don't find this very encyclopedic
      • Suggest preferred phrase: "Tempest in a teapot" ? "whining" ?" "Kvetching"? "Public is bored and needed to be upset over something?" (grin) --MTBW
    • had little patience the horse's story - missing something?
        • DeFord's radio commentary positively dripped with sarcasm... he said, " the whole thing is a ridiculous reverie", want to present balance and convey the tone of the NOT-Chromies - DeFord's piece was the most striking. Suggested way to rephrase?
          • I was thinking of the fact that "with" seems to be missing between "patience" and "the horse's". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • @Crisco 1492: for little typos and other small stuff, I don't mind if you just tweak them of pop in hidden text that pinpoints a problem. Faster for both of us than telling me to. Sometimes I've stared at an article so long that I'm a little dense, as my comments to Nikkimaria's review may indicate. If you actually mess up something, I'll tweak your tweaks, but also take it as evidence that something was screwy and needed fixing Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm concerned about the length of this article. California Chrome likely has several further seasons to go through, and yet this is already longer than many biographies of humans. I'd recommend a very critical reread of the article, to see what can be pruned
        • Working on it, per Blofeld's comments above, I've already chopped about a thousand words so far. --MTBW
    • I'll try and do the racing career tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It was the last race for Alberto Delgado as the horse's jockey, but Sherman did not link the horse's performance to the jockey, stating that California Chrome was still growing and learning how to be a racehorse. - Any way to avoid "jockey ... jockey"?
    • Will tweak, stay tuned. --MTBW
  • the only other horses to win both the Santa Anita Derby and the Kentucky Derby were I'll Have Another, Sunday Silence, Winning Colors, Affirmed, and Majestic Prince. - That's a lot of horses to use "only" for
    • five in 140 years?? --MTBW
  • schooled in the saddling paddock, - Schooled?
    • PING FOR ANSWER: In that case, it means they led him around in circles to get him used to the place. "Schooled" is a term of art in horse land for training -- how can I fix this for you? --MTBW
      • If it's in the glossary, linked there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Who tag added
  • Previously, Charlie Whittingham held the record when at age 76 he trained Sunday Silence to win the 1989 Kentucky Derby. - If this should be included at all, it should be as a footnote. It's not really pertinent to the narrative
    • Big news at the time, given Art Sherman's age and how famous Whittingham was in horse racing circles...could live with efn but Whittingham was a big deal. --MTBW
  • California Chrome shipped on May 12 via air to Baltimore for the 2014 Preakness Stakes, traveling on the same plane as the other two horses from the Derby to also run in the Preakness - I sense this could probably be tightened a bit (maybe "California Chrome, together with two other Derby racers, shipped on May 12 to Baltimore for the 2014 Preakness Stakes"
    • Will tweak --MTBW
  • Do you have the script to check for duplicated links? I sense you need it here.
    • PING FOR ANSWER: Don't have the script. Is there a toollabs link I can run? --MTBW
  • security - I'd call this overlinking
    • Heh, depends on the reader -- you wanted clarification of "schooled"! (smile) --MTBW
      • Physical security is general. Schooled in the most literal sense clearly wouldn't apply to a horse. Unless Mr. Ed went through Grade 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In search of interesting stories, the press ran a piece on the Toner stable's barn cat, Mademoiselle. - I see where you're going here, but ... seriously.
    • It was THAT BAD! The press scrutiny was pretty ridiculous. I didn't mention the stories on the groom, the exercise rider's kid, how Ride on Curlin's trainer and Sherman were chanting "1-2, 1-2" in the bar at night... really, there was restraint!  ;-) --MTBW
  • moved in and accidentally stepped on California Chrome's heel as both horses broke from the gate. - Accidentally? What does this add? One would expect sentience a prerequisite for deliberately doing something, and thus also the corollary
    • It's wasn't because he stepped on himself, which was the original theory, and it also wasn't because anyone (jockey, gate assistant, etc.) deliberately did something...nor did the other horse misbehave as far as anyone can tell, it was just a "shit happens" thing. Horses CAN do weird stuff on the track - not to screw over another horse on purpose, but they can dislike the jockey, spook at something, stand funny in the gate... --MTBW
  • luckily, - feels like editorializing
    • Clarified. --MTBW
  • Very well written, although pruning is still possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pruning some more, will take me a couple days to whack at it now that I have DAP racing live. Montanabw(talk) 08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Alright... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Froggerlaura comments
    • The La Troinne photo was a copy vio, so had to tag for deletion at Commons. Stay away from anything from the non-existent "Gooreen collection" as most of the photos are copyrighted and taken from elsewhere on the internet. Froggerlaura ribbit 15:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
        • OK. There is a "fair use" exception, but if these are controversial, I'll avoid those. Can you find anything "legal" on any other horses in his pedigree this side of the Darley Arabian? Swaps maybe? --MTBW

Thanks Crisco and Froggerlaura, I'll address these issues and get back to you. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To all: DAP Racing now live. I need to tweak it some more, anyone else is welcome to dive in over there (no GA/FA yet, DYK hook ideas welcome at talk there) but should soon be able to chop some stuff from 'Chrome. Give me about 24 hours to digest edits and let me have new eyes on the article. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1997 award winning science fiction blockbuster film. I overhauled this article in 2013, initiating a successful nomination for good article status. Having significantly expanded the article again since then, I now believe it meets featured article requirements. This is my first FAC nomination, so I apologise if I have overlooked any issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Corbett 20:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Are you certain that Le Cinquième Élément is the correct French title? I was taught that capital letters in French don't take accents, and the title seems to be given as Le Cinquième élément elsewhere.
    • You're right! Changed.
  • The lead has "special forces Major", whereas the Plot section has "major in the special forces". Is it to be major or Major?
    • Changed to 'major'.
  • "... destroys an attacking Earth battleship". What is the battleship attacking? Is it a naval battleship?
    • Clarified that it is a spaceship, and that it was attacking the 'Great Evil'.
  • "The current Mondoshawan contact, priest Vito Cornelius, informs President Lindberg of the history of the Great Evil ...". Who is President Lindberg?
    • Clarified that it is the president of earth.
  • "The Diva is killed ...". Why the Diva? In the previous paragraph she was introduced as "Diva Plavalaguna", implying that Diva was her first name.
    • I've changed all references to the character to her last name, which already appeared once anyway, so now it is consistent.

Eric Corbett 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick image check - Poster image is fine, the file File:Valerian_FifthElement2.jpg is a good use within the article but I would suggest making sure the caption makes reference back to the French work it was inspired by, reflecting some of that in the image rational (perhaps including the ref for that in the ratioanle page). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. :)
      • Thank you both for your comments, and thanks for your copyedits Eric. I have now addressed each issue that was brought up. Freikorp (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

I've always enjoyed watching this film, but I must confess that the plot has seemed rather to interrupt the 3D-traffic scenes! Perhaps I will pay more attention after having read this article. I have not noticed any omissions and have only a few comments:

  • I tweaked the article a bit to remove a couple of reported citation problems. While doing that I noticed that there are two citations to Valerian: The New Future Trilogy, which do not contain equivalent information: one has editors, the other has a translator and a series parameter. It is probably better to make them consistent, unless for example only parts of the book were translated.
  • Thanks, i've merged two reference to make them consistent.
  • The citations have a format delimited by full stops and ending with a full stop. The short-form references should also end with a full stop for consistency: "Hayward, p. 91." etc.
  • Done.
  • Plot: Please see WP:PLOTPRESENT: "As key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor), where applicable." This is done in the lead for Willis and Jovovich, but not in the plot for the other characters. To make the plot section self-sufficient I would do it for those two as well, particularly as Jovovich' character is not named in the lead.
  • Done.
  • I was a bit surprised that Besson's book The Story of the Fifth Element: The Adventure and Discovery of a Film is only "further reading". Is it too much a primary source to be acceptable as a reference? Does it have nothing to add to coverage of the subject?

--Mirokado (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The book was listed in the bibliography when I found the article, though it was not used anywhere as an inline citation, so I moved it to 'Further reading'. I considered buying the book to use it as a reference, as i'm sure it could add to the subject, however, it is a collector's item and out of print. The cheapest I could find a second hand copy on was $300 [2], a tad more than what i'm willing to spend on my hobby of editing wikipedia. Would it be more appropriate to move it back to the bibliography, even though it is not used as an inline citation? Should we delete it due to it looking out of place? Or do you think given the circumstances it can work where it is? Thanks for your comments Mirakado. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Har, I didn't check availability before commenting! It's better to leave it as it is so the referencing in the article is clear. --Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Just checking the references again I noticed a few other minor issues, then I can support this article. --Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Current refs 10, 18, 60, 68, 73, 97: citations add outer double quotes, so inner quotes in the title need to be single
  • Current ref 27: We normally transform titles to title case rather than retaining all-caps words
  • Current refs 62, 69, 71, 81: (magazine) seems redundant here, three times a wl disambiguator so a pipe would be necessary, once not linked, in that case "Discover Magazine" is how they refer to themselves if clarification is needed.

--Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Done, done and done :). Thanks again for your observations. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    You are welcome. Supporting now. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Alsos Mission[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This article was extremely popular when it appeared on the front page as a DYK. I think it will prove equally popular as a TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. The Germany subsection seems a bit long, but I don't really know how you'd subdivide it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotcheck not done

  • "The cellar itself was not blown up, because this would have meant the destruction of the Church and Castle located above the cellar." - source?
    • Added by a German Wikipedian. Removed until I find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hinsley et al: British Intelligence is a title, not a series; what is current presented as the title is the volume name
  • Mahoney: don't need spaces around dash in dates, don't need both "thesis" and "dissertation", and how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I found Mahoney on the shelf at the ADFA library. It was academically reviewed and is widely cited in the literature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Red Skelton[edit]

Nominator(s): We hope (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the well-known American comic Red Skelton. Skelton's 70 year career in entertainment included vaudeville, films, radio and a weekly television show that aired for 20 years. He was also a well-known artist specializing in portraits of clowns. While he had done artwork as a hobby for many years, his professional life as an artist began with the first public showing of his work in 1964. Skelton is said to have earned more money through his artwork than from his long-lived television program.

The article has been through peer review, and I'd like to thank those who got it to this point once more- Crisco 1492 , Cassianto, Tim riley, SchroCat, and Mlpearc for their time and effort with this article. We hope (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on prose. I've nitpicked this to bits on two or three occasions already, and it looks better than ever. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I was another happy punter at PR: nicely put together, well-referenced and easy to read. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Incredibly high quality, quite well sourced throughout in a meticulous fashion, great example of comedy for our readers and editors, alike. — Cirt (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – After some light copy edits and a review at peer review, I am more than happy to support this articles promotion to FA status. Cassiantotalk 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks to all who have commented thus far for their support and kind words. We hope (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Think I've caught them all. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Terry-Thomas_and_Red_Skelton,_1967.jpg: use publication date instead of upload date in template. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is now corrected at Commons using May 5, 1967 from the CBS release for the date. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this one tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • "Skelton learned his comedic and pantomime skills beginning at age 10" -this reads a little awkwardly- You might change do "Skelton began developing his comedic and pantomime skills from the age of 10".


  • " A pantomime sketch of how different people ate doughnuts written by Skelton and his wife launched a career for him in vaudeville" -did this sketch have a formal title?

added title-

  • "He moved to The Raleigh Cigarettes Program in 1941 where many of his comedy characters were created and had a regularly scheduled radio program until 1957." -do you mean he became host of it?


  • No mention whatsoever of his film work?? You might add a sentence "Skelton made his film debut in 1938 alongside Ginger Rogers and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. in Alfred Santell's Having Wonderful Time, and he went on to appear in numerous comedy films throughout the 1940s and early 1950s such as the Dr. Kildare medical dramas, Flight Command (1940), Ship Ahoy (1942), Whistling in Dixie (1942), I Dood It (1943), Bathing Beauty (1944), Ziegfeld Follies (1946), The Yellow Cab Man (1950), Texas Carnival (1951) and The Clown (1953).
I've sorted this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Early years
  • Quite a big jump to "By age 14, Skelton had left school and was already a veteran performer". Do have a little more info on his development as a performer between 10-14? What was he asked to do during his four years on the medicine show?

Added more on this We hope (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Doughnut dunkers
  • No link to Loew's State Theatre?

We have no article on the theatre.

That's a very notable missing article then! I started Loew's State Theatre (New York City), can you link it?♦ Dr. Blofeld

Just did now. We hope (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Only link Dougnuts in the first instance, remove the second link.

Think there's only one link now.

Film work
  • Wasn't Having Wonderful Time July 1938 release rather than 1937? You might want to reword to filming in 1937 and released in July 1938.


  • Like with the lead this is really not very well covered. You skip a lot of notable films and then "By 1947, . You need to add a good paragraph I think covering the most notable films in between of the 40s, especially Dr. Kildare, and mention a few of his recurring co stars/directors. Didn't he co star with Eleanor Powell in a few films? Also mention his favourite director S. Sylvan Simon. And then later you need to cover his 50s films. I'd be happy to help work on this section if its OK with you We hope?
I've taken care of this now. I'm now happy with the coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Edna was also the manager of the couple's funds because Skelton spent money too easily. " -reword to "Edna remained the manager of the couple's funds because Skelton spent money too easily. "


Cast of characters
  • Do boxer and cowboy really need linking?


  • Do live and costume really need linking too?


  • Delink showing?


  • "He was the recipient of the Gold Medal of the General Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons, for Distinguished Service in the Arts and Sciences." -shouldn't it be "a" recipient, rather than "the"?


  • "He also received an honorary degree from the college." -when was this?

clarified that he received the award & degree at the same ceremony in 1961.

  • "Skelton received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Screen Actors Guild in 1987, and in 1988, he was inducted into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' Television Hall of Fame.[246][247][248] He was one of the International Clown Hall of Fame's first inductees in 1989 and was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 1994." Definitely worth mentioning the Cecille De Mille and a few of these at the end of the lead.
  • Haven't Vincennes University, HBO and Pantheon Theatre already been linked?

found second Vincennes University and de-linked. Found only the one Pantheon Theatre.

Removed table. We hope (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Notes and references

Why is Las Vegas linked in notes but not the article? Linked in article. Surprised to see no bibliography. I'd put the few books you use underneath. I'd expected for somebody like Skelton to see a lot more book sources used. Did you look extensively in google books while writing it?

Overall this is an excellent piece. I do think though that the film work needs to be improved before this is ready to pass and something done with the filmography, ideally a new article with a table and splitting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. B.-let me start with the easier fixes you suggested. Re: book sources, what you see in bibliography are from Google Books; many of the hits I found for books don't deal directly with his life, but are books on television and radio programs. Skelton had asked friend and author Gene Fowler to write his biography; when Fowler died in 1960, this project seemed to have been permanently shelved. There's still information being discovered about Skelton from the collection at Vincennes University. He had kept just about everything he owned since the age of ten and said in a 1984 interview that he would let someone else go through it.
I've used a lot of newspaper stories as references for the article, but they have literally been beaten out of Google News Archive over a period of time. After Google stopped adding to the online newspapers, something was changed in the way one was able to search them; previously you either found what you were looking for or ran out of patience before you ran out of hits. :) Limits were placed on the number of hits and the keyword search became a lot more difficult regarding how to find what you wanted. More hits are now being allowed, but the keyword search is still difficult-much trial and error to find what you want- and the formerly working timeframe search now gets you a message that there are no news stories in that timeframe. Two of the three books with extensive information on Skelton (Adir and Hyatt) had the wrong birthdate for his son, Richard. I was able to see the error because a news story about the child's death said he had died ten days before his tenth birthday; the correct date of Richard's birth was confirmed by a transcript from the California Death Index.
I'd be happy to have you add (or subtract) anything you see fit! :) Thanks, We hope (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to work on it tomorrow!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Don't bother with adding the notable awards at the end of the lead, I just noticed them in the infobox. I'm happy now with the film coverage. Great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. B.! Did locate more material on what Skelton did when working in the medicine show I'll be adding, as well as another award. Skelton and Katharine Hepburn received lifetime achievement American Comedy Awards in 1989. ;) We hope (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Generally the Bibliography section would be for books by Skelton, with a separate Sources section after References for cited sources - could we split the two?


  • Pendergast publisher needs spacing


  • FN4: publisher?

Removed the TCM ref as the news story covers the event.

  • Check consistency in italicization - compare for example FNs 8 and 16. Publications should generally be italicized.


  • FN26, 181: page?

These are no longer at Google News Archive. Newspaper Archive won't let you view the page for Modesto Bee without subscribing. A search of the News and Courier (now Post and Courier) website shows the newspaper's archives there do not go back to 1964. These disappeared from Google News Archive very recently. The Hedda Hopper news story was added to the article in May 2014 and recently were removed from the newspaper archives at Google. Have tried to locate other sources for the page numbers to these but no luck. Titles at ProQuest archiver. Modesto Bee archives here begin with 1994; the Edna Skelton Pound obituary is from 1982. News and Courier not shown but the paper's later title, Post and Courier are. No 1964 archives (the Hedda Hopper column) copies are shown as available here. We hope (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • FN34: need title caps for publication


  • Fn40: why is this full bibliographic citation here when other cites to that source are shortened?


  • Fn51: which paper is this?

fixed- Stopping here for now and will return to this list. We hope (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in how you format PPV notes

I think this is fixed now.

  • Be consistent in how you format FamilySearch refs


  • FN205: this is formatted as a book, but it's a periodical


  • Fn284: need full citation


  • FN293: formatting here is very strange - are there chapter or section titles that can be used instead of page numbers? Can the URL be truncated further? And why is there a full cite here when this is in your Bibliography list?

The only copy of the book available at Google Books for viewing is an e-book, which has no page numbers. Other versions of the book (print) can't be previewed or even searched. I left the link in citations because of the issue re: e-books not having page numbers. Please suggest how to handle this issue. The link is the only one available for the book-Google offers no other link to it. I think tinyurl and similar cites are blocked from WP, so that looks to be no option to shorten it. We hope (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC) OK-there's another, newer book by the same author which has this information in it that isn't an e-book. I've switched the citation to that book. We hope (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in how you space short cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please point out to me what needs correcting re: short cites & spacing. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the main tributaries of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It started out as a two-sentence stub and has been steadily improving since 2012. After becoming a GA in early 2013, it failed FAC twice in mid-2013 and early 2014, mostly due to prose concerns. By the third FAC in May, this article was getting close to the standards (mainly due to work by the GOCE), but the prose still required more work. Now, I think that the prose finally meets the prose standards for FA. I am also certain that the other standards are met, as no major issues with these have been raised in recent FACs. Hopefully, it'll pass this time. --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review
  • Just the one question, really. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Not sure if there is a base map or not. Kmusser would know, as he created/uploaded it. --Jakob (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There is not a base map, I created that map specifically for this article. Sources for the individual data elements of the map are on the image page. Kmusser (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, then the images look fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: Hello, Jakob -- Your article looked interesting, so I decided to read it and see if I could help. It is well written for the most part. I just made a few minor copy-edits to correct spelling and punctuation, and add a few missing words. I rearranged the words in a few sentences to make them more concise and to improve sentence flow. There are just a few issues I'd like to mention here:

1) The last sentence in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Oxbow lake is:

"Japanese knotweed has been seen near Interstate 80 on the northern edges of the Turkey Hill Oxbow"

and the last sentence in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Biology is:

"There are populations of Japanese knotweed, an invasive plant, along the creek and its tributaries south of Pennsylvania Route 118".

I'm pointing this out just in case this might be a duplication of information. If not, that's fine.

2) In the second paragraph in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Geology is the following sentence:

"There are numerous deposits of iron ore and limestone in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley and also some deposits of marble along it".

The pronoun "it" at the end of the sentence is ambiguous. It could refer to "valley", but perhaps also to "creek". If it means "Fishing Creek valley", then I suggest the following re-wording, which will eliminate any ambiguity:

"There are numerous deposits of iron ore and limestone, as well as some deposits of marble, in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley."
@Jakec: (Did you see this?) You didn't like this wording? If you don't like "as well as", then at least remove "also" and just use "and". "Also" and "and" are too close in meaning to use both.
If there is no real reason to separate marble from iron ore and limestone, why not just make it a list of three?
"There are numerous deposits of iron ore, limestone and marble in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley".
It's more concise than the other versions. CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

3) The second and third sentences in Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Recreation are:

"There are other tracts of public property along the creek, one of which, called the Power Dam, is 2 miles (3.2 km) upstream of Benton. It covers 19 acres (7.7 ha) and stretches for 2900 feet (880 meters) of Fishing Creek, and features the remains of a concrete dam."

Usually, when one uses the verb "features", what usually follows is an interesting or attractive highlight. "The remains of a concrete dam" does not conjure up an image of something attractive. I suppose it could be interesting, though. If you're happy with it, that's fine. It's just an unusual use of the verb. (There is another example with the same construction a few sentences below this.)

4) In the second-to-last paragraph of the article is the following sentence:

"The hiking trail Waterfall Wonderland: Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls is described as "a place of almost mystical beauty" by Jeff Mitchell in his book Hiking the Endless Mountains: Exploring the Wilderness of Northeastern Pennsylvania".
There is something that is not clear in this sentence. I suppose "Water Wonderland" is the name of the hiking trail.

However, what follows, a colon (:) and "Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls" is described as..." does not make sense. Perhaps there are some words missing following "Waterfall Wonderland". Perhaps it should read,

"The hiking trail Waterfall Wonderland, which affords views of Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls, is described as..." CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Thanks for the comments.
  1. It's not duplication. PA 118 is near the source and the oxbow is near the mouth.
  2. I've changed the wording.
  3. Changed features to contains.
  4. I replaced that sentence with your suggested sentence.
--Jakob (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hot on the trail of Kronan (ship) (TFA 23 June) comes the battle it sank in. This article shares content with the article on Kronan, but it has more details on the aftermath as well as the Danish and Dutch perspectives. It's a relatively minor battle and far less notable than Køge Bay later in the Scanian War. But it was significant for since it paved the way for the Danish invasion of Scania and the resulting Dano-Swedish slug match, including the battle of Lund, the bloodiest battle ever fought in Scandinavia.

It's currently a GA and recently became an A-class WP:MILHIST article. I've had some very nice help from both processes and I think it's up to par to become an FA. I'm looking forward to a thorough review.

Peter Isotalo 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and support from the Princess of Science[edit]

@Peter Isotalo: Hello there! I'm Parcly Taxel and you're hereby invited to comment on fluorine's FAC. I am part of the WikiProject on chemical elements.

For the length, media, lead, structure, citations, stability and neutrality (points 1B, 1D, 1E, 2, 3 and 4 of the FA criteria) they're all fine – this is a well-documented historical event from a long time ago, and it even comes with paintings! As well as that, the overall structure is all chronological and neat, delving into details here and there to reinforce the points made, but not too much so as to diverge from the central topic. The prose and grammar (1A) are impeccable. I couldn't "stop" reading the article, there were no bumps, I just kept going like I was hypnotised (except for the list, which is clearly allowed by the MOS anyway). Finally (1C), how many dubious sources can I count? Zero. It's short, sweet, consistent and wrapped in a package of cuteness and terseness. What do you get, Peter, for doing all this work? A pony and a support. Parcly Taxel 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support. I should add that I've had help-a-plenty with fine-tuning the prose, so kudos to everyone who has contributed.
And yay for ponies!
Peter Isotalo 09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


In general, a comprehensive and well-referenced article that meets the FAC as far as I can tell. However, there are some minor details that I would like to address:

  • As the date of the battle is according to the Julian calender, I would suggest to add the Georgian date as well (since at least one participant used it at the time)
  • Also Charles CI should be linked in the lede.
  • In the chapter Background, I am not sure whether wages is the appropriate term for soldiers' pay - if that is what is referred to.
  • Since the Sound Toll was a Danish institution, I am not convinced that the English fleet was sent to "keep it out of Danish control". The English wanted it gone, at least at the time.
  • "the war revealed" - I assume it refers to the Danish-Swedish war of 1657-8, not the Scanian War mentioned earlier.
  • The Holy Roman Empire is suddenly involved. Maybe a sentence or two might be added how that came to be. And this might include a mention of the Franco-Dutch war going on at the time.
  • In the chapter "Prelude" the Danish fleet is mentioned sailing from Gotland (Visby), which was last mentioned being ceded to Sweden by Denmark. It seems they somehow got it back.
  • The two Swedish vessels mentioned in the first paragraph were actually taken by Brandenburg/Prussian warships. They were however not involved in either battle, but it might be worth mentioning.
  • In the chapter "Forces" the numbers of guns differ from the ones given in "Battle of Møn", although the sources remain the same (eg Churprindsen had 68 at Öland and 74 at Møn). Incidentally, Zettersten was published in 1903 according to the bibliography, and in 1997 according to the reference. Which is it?

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been a tad busy with switching jobs, but I'll get cracking on updates later today. I'll address two issues right now:
  • First sentence of "Prelude" mentions the Danes capturing Gotland. Could it be made clearer?
  • The battle of Møn was a year later. Ships might have been up-gunned. Or it might be a completely different ship. Either way, that's what the sources say. I Fixed Zettersten, though.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@ÄDA - DÄP:, I specified[3] who captured what at Bornholm (it wasn't just the Prussians). I forgot to point out that I added info on the motivations of Emperor Leopold I.
Peter Isotalo 13:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The background section covers the Scanian war in two different parts; one directly under the background section, and later under the title Scanian war, with an interlude about the state of the navies in between. This should be rearranged to be clearer.
  • The entire background is also very much written from a Swedish perspective. It would be good to expand it to cover the Danish and Dutch situation as well. In particular, it would be worth noting how the Dutch (and English) had a long standing strategy of trying to balance Sweden and Denmark against each other (but more importantly to try to control France!), which had started much earlier and would continue through the Great Northern War.
  • The aftermath section could also mention the naval reforms that were made in Sweden after the war.

Andejons (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The awkward order of sections in the background is fixed.
I'm looking for suitable sources regarding the Danish foreign policy situation, but Dutch and English foreign policies seem off-topic to me. The Dutch were auxilliaries of Denmark and the English never even fought. Besides, there's already content about the reasons for Dutch and English involvement. In an FAC of Scanian War it would be quite appropriate with a brief summary, but this is a single battle of that war which in itself part of the Franco-Dutch War.
I added some information about the founding of Karlskrona, but as with the foreign policy, is this really relevant in this article? It would be either the Scanian War article or Køge Bay, not Öland.
Peter Isotalo 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I seem to have missed this reply. The first point is OK now, and the second has been addressed below; I'm satisfied with the background; England was mostly an aside that I thought could be easily included together with the Netherlands since they had similar aims and policies.
The naval reforms were not only the new naval base, but also the new allotment system. I agree that there is no need to cover this in any depth: a sentence or two should be enough.
Andejons (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


It's a lovely article. I will probably support once User:Andejons's points are answered. Good work! --John (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jakec[edit]

Mostly a decent article, but a few things need fixing before I can support (most are minor).

  • In the lead, "Just as the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank with the loss of almost its entire crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz" makes it sound like the loss of the entire crew sank, not that the entire crew sank. Suggest "Just as the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank, killing almost all of its crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz"
  • Is there any information on how many combatants there were on the Dutch side?
  • Not really sure what the sentence "By early 1672 Swedish relations with France had improved and an alliance with the most powerful state in Europe was joined" means.
  • "After about an hour-and-a-half to two hours of hard fighting Svärdet's mainmast went overboard and Uggla had to strike his colors (surrender) to Tromp". Just saying surrender would be fine.
  • "Despite the astounding success, several allied officers were displeased with the conduct of their forces." Is there a source for the claim "astounding"?
  • Finally, one comment on the structure/balance of the article. It seems that there's a lot of background and I can't see how most of it ties in with the main event. The battle section has the opposite problem: comparatively little information. It's my opinion that the event section of an article on an event should generally be the largest section, while the background and aftermath sections should be smaller or at least approximately the same size.

--Jakob (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points regarding prose. There aren't really that much more to add about the battle, though. I generelly agree about the balance of content, but it will always depend on the event. There are no simply no blow-by-blow accounts of this particular battle. The info about the proceedings of the commission also ties in to the explanation of the battle.
I haven't seen any estimates of Dutch or Danish number of men, but I'll double-check my refs.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this[4] should address your other concerns.
Figures for the manpower of the allies fleet seems to be very elusive. It doesn't seem to be specified even in Barfod (1997).
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Peter Isotalo: Sorry it took this long to get back. It kept slipping my mind to reply. The prose is good now, and I'm fine with the shortness of the battle section and the lack of info on the number of men since there aren't sources to support extra info. I still think the background section is too long for the rest of the article. Even shortening it by about 30% would be a great improvement. BTW I have an open FAC if you're interested: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive4. --Jakob (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are two other battle FAs with similar or more extensive backgrounds: battle for Henderson Field and battle of the Bismarck Sea. They have more info on the action itself, but that's because they're blessed with highly detailed, modern sources. The relative importance of those battles is comparable to this one. And andejons is asking for more background above. I could very well be wrong, but both of you obviously can't be right at the same time. So how do we solve this?
Peter Isotalo 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll defer to andejons since I am not familiar with this type of article. Support. --Jakob (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually wouldn't mind if some of the material was cut, but it should be rewritten to cover at least Denmark and Sweden on more equal terms; if the policies of Sweden leading up to the war is covered, the same should be true for Denmark. I think the background would gain from a rewrite; it comes from an article dealing more with Swedish matters and it shows. I think the second paragraph, and the sentences leading into it, could be cut completely without the article suffering. The second Dano-Swedish is mostly interesting in this context for what it reveals about Dutch policies, but it is not as necessary to know the details of it as the fact that Sweden had grown at the expense of Denmark and that the Danes were looking for a chance to take back what had been lost.
Andejons (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I found Dyrvik (1998) today. How's this?
Peter Isotalo 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that's much better balanced. There are a couple of things that could still be cut, but it does a much better job of explaining why there was a war and why the Dutch were allied with the Danes.
Andejons (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Do you feel there's need for further cuts for FA status?
Peter Isotalo 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there is a sentence or two that I believe could be cut if you want to shorten it further, but it seems rather more well-balanced now. I did find another thing, though. In the battle section, the text seems to contradict itself "Several Swedish ships attempted to assist Uggla, but they were in a lee position and could not provide effective support [...] Only Hieronymus, Neptunus and Järnvågen, an armed merchantman, had tried to support Uggla."
Andejons (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Should be clarified now.[5]
Peter Isotalo 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Map and sailing order could both be larger
  • File:Ortus-imperii-suecorum.png (map source): were any pre-existing images used to create this one? Where did this map get its data from?
  • File:Svenska_flottans_seglingsordning_1675.jpg: possible to translate the image description? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I pretty much always go for default size, so I don't have a sense of what's appropriate. Would you mind doing the size tweaks to what you feel is better?
  • I don't know exactly what this is based on, but it matches the sources I've added. As pointed out in the FAC of Kronan, it's a very standard map of the territorial expansion of Sweden during it's time as a Great Power.
  • Added image stranslation.[6]
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Dean of the Chemistry Department: Parcly Taxel 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine. Atomic number 9. The lightest halogen, most reactive element, an extreme challenge to isolate… yet it is found everywhere from toothpaste to uranium enrichment plants. I've been working from the suggestions of FAC 3 and Sandbh, fixing the article refs and performing a whole-article copyedit. I've also introduced a few new references to fill in unreferenced statement gaps. So here we go. Fourth time lucky, eh? Flevoland Parcly Taxel 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Harvard errors (resolved)[edit]

The HarvErrors script suggests that 21 of the references listed in the Indexed references section are not cited. These should be deleted or moved to a Further reading section.Aa77zz (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Done in double quick time. Parcly Taxel 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Still one to sort out: Audi, G.; Bersillon, O.; Blachot, J.; Wapstra, A. H. (2003). --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not an error. I used the {{NUBASE 2003}} template in the citation, which HarvErrors mistakes for a redundant citation when in fact it is cited in the Isotopes section. Parcly Taxel 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the template and the article. --Mirokado (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

John (support)[edit]

I have never seen the word monoisotopy before. Is it a real word? --John (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. @R8R Gtrs: mentioned it in the article's talk page as part of his pre-FAC check, all but one of whose suggestions I've weaved into the article. Parcly Taxel 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? It doesn't seem to exist on the Internet except on a couple of Wikipedia articles. --John (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Even I think "monoisotopy" is a highly technical term. It's been swapped out now. Parcly Taxel 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I just copied the words from the part of the article I quoted. I am clearly not to be the judge of how Englsih words are formed/used, since I wasn't born in any English-speaking country, and I haven't lived in any, nor am I now.--R8R (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out. Here's another nitpick:

Annotated periodic table colored mostly gray and green
Periodic table colored by how elements are treated in this article.
  Noble gases
  Unknown properties

What is this table actually for? It does not mention halogens, though they are discussed in the article and its subject is one. Are noble gases also non-metals? Etc. --John (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a byproduct of the cumulative edits between the last FAC 3 years prior and now. From what you've said I also think that noble gases should come before nonmetals in the compounds section. That has been done, along with the legend's removal: the latter is all too redundant. Parcly Taxel 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This table is for a clearer difering the sets of elements discussed under each subheader. For example, antimony is mentioned among nonmetals, even though it is chemically closer to metals. The reader is explained what the borders between groups of elements under each header are via that table. Earler, those unobvious parts were explained in a note; that note is gone now for some reason. I'll get it back, compare with what we have now. Also, regarding the categories of the picture: each category of elements on the picture (metals, nonmetals, noble gases, hydrogen, carbon) coresponds to a category described in a subsection (Metals, Other nonmetals, Noble gases, Hydrogen, Organic chenistry). I hope that makes the purpose of the picture clear. Since it was obviously not as clear as intended (because of the missing note), I'll get the note back; if it's still unclear, please help make it more understandable.
Regarding titles: they are secondary to facts described under them. And it makes most sense (as I see it) to go in the order of hydrogen -- metals -- nonmetals -- noble gases -- organic chemistry. Then we can adjust the titles to the story. For example, nonmetals (other than noble gases and hydrogen) can be called "other reactive nonmetals," and the meaning is still clear. Or, if that's not good enough, we can add a line written in italics under the header explaining that, similar to {{redirect}}. There are options.--R8R (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the legend is back as a note; I've touched up the English as well. And then I realise we need more relentless critics, so this nomination won't stall. BANZAI! Parcly Taxel 04:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I now support. Nice work; here are the trifling copyedits I performed. --John (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm reasonably satisfied that this article meets all the FAC criteria bar (1a) prose; (2c) consistent citations; and (3) media. On prose I made some edits to the lead however User:Parcly Taxel has rewritten some of these, more or less back to the way they were. That is fine, however I remain personally dissatisfied with the standard of prose. Given any more of my edits to prose may be rewritten I will stop here. May I ask another editor to review the prose, in case I am being too pernickety? Re 2c, consistent citations, I have not looked closely at these to determine if they are satisfactory (I did see some Lide 2004 citations which need a pp rather than a p; and Burney 1999, which needs a p rather than a pp). Media looks OK but I haven't checked copyright status. 05:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh, tillie. I "reverted" some of those copyedits (@Sandbh: yours) because they actually made the prose look worse, not better (indeed, I noticed the fragmented nature of the sentences introduced – stoppy-movey). John knows better; I've left his copyedits as they were. As for the single and double p-letters, yes, that has been fixed. Parcly Taxel 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Noted and understood. I look forward to further developments. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
As for the media, none of them are fair use, the authors are properly cited and everything's fine under the sun and moon. FACR#3 is all smiles. Parcly Taxel 09:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


"…the rest is converted into corrosive hydrogen fluoride, a precursor to various organic fluorides and the critical aluminium refining flux cryolite.'
  • The location of cryolite as the first word in a five word descriptive phrase is too far away. By the time you get to the end of the phrase it doesn't make sense.
    • Changed to read " fluorides and cryolite, the critical aluminium refining flux": is this better? Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Need a semicolon after fluorides Sandbh (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
"Organofluorine compounds persist in the environment due to the strength of the carbon–fluorine bond, but the potential health impact of such compounds is unclear."
  • The use of but in this sentence doesn't make sense; there is nothing needing to be said that needs a 'but'.
"A few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons to deter herbivores, but fluorine has no known metabolic role in mammals."
  • Use of a 'but' here is awkward. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Changed these two consecutive sentence to read "Organofluorine compounds persist in the environment due to the strength of the carbon–fluorine bond. The potential health impact of such compounds is unclear: a few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons to deter herbivores, though fluorine has no known metabolic role in mammals." Is this better? Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Somewhat although the second sentence mixes concepts. Joining the concept of 'health impact' to the concept of plant-generated herbivore poisons is a long bow; and then to add that fluorine has no metabolic roles in mammals is another obscure connection. Sandbh (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Electron configuration

"…two electrons in a filled inner shell and seven in an outer shell one short of completion."
  • Last phrase, 'outer shell one short of completion' is grammatically awkward.
"Fluorine's first ionization energy is third-highest among all elements, behind helium and neon, so removing electrons from neutral fluorine atoms is very difficult.
  • The 'so' does not read well.
"Fluorine has a high electron affinity, second only to chlorine, preferring to capture an electron and become isoelectronic with the noble gas neon…
  • Sentence doesn't read well: finishing with 'affinity' and starting on the other side with 'preferring' doesn't flow very well. Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All problems above this line have been fixed. Parcly Taxel 09:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


"The bond energy of difluorine is much lower than those of Cl2 and Br2, similar to that of a weak peroxide bond, which accounts for its high reactivity and easy dissociation."
  • Awkward due to mixing of quantity tenses (singular value of F; mutiple values of Cl and Br). Suggest: "The bond energy of difluorine is much lower than that of either Cl2 or Br2, and is similar to that of a weak peroxide bond; this accounts for its high reactivity and easy dissociation."
"Bonds to other atoms are very strong because of its high electronegativity."
  • The 'its' does not make sense; the EN of fluorine is that of the F atom, not difluorine.
"Reactions of elemental fluorine with metals require varying conditions: alkali metals cause explosions and alkaline earth metals display vigorous activity in bulk, but most other metals such as aluminium and iron must be powdered to prevent metal fluoride layers from passivating, and noble metals require pure fluorine gas at 300–450 °C (575–850 °F). Metalloids and some solid nonmetals (sulfur, phosphorus, and selenium) burn with a flame in room temperature fluorine. Hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide combine readily with fluorine, the latter sometimes explosively, but sulfuric acid exhibits much less activity."
  • The "buts" are awkward. Both can be replaced by semicolons. The order of metal fluoride layers and passivating is the wrong way round: "to prevent passivation due to the formation of metal fluoride layers" is the sense of what needs to be said.
"Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide react at room and slightly higher temperatures.."; "...and other organic chemicals beget..."
  • Suggest: "Carbon dioxide reacts at room temperature; carbon monoxide at a slightly higher temperature"
  • Kill the 'beget'; replace with a more modern word
"nitrogen requires electric discharge and elevated temperatures for reaction"
  • Suggest: "nitrogen requires an electric discharge"
"ammonia's reaction is potentially explosive"
  • Awkward construction. Suggest: "ammonia may react explosively."
"Oxygen does not combine under ambient conditions, but can be made to using electric discharge at low temperatures and pressures…"
  • Oxygen does not combine with what? But can be made "to" what? Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You know what? Just put all your prose mistakes here and say that you'll support once everything is resolved. I want this article through and promoted as fast as possible. The problems in Reactivity have all been fixed. Parcly Taxel 06:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (support)[edit]

Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC, and was quite pleased by the article! Just a few comments.

  • US$15 - this should have a link to USD. Throughout the article, you're inconsistent whether you use $ or US$
  • Organofluorine should perhaps be linked in the last paragraph of the lead
  • "Fluorine has high reactivity because compared with Cl2 and Br2, difluorine's bond energy is much lower, similar to a weak peroxide bond,[18][19] allowing elemental fluorine to dissociate easily. " - I get what it means, but I think it could be explained better with a better sentence structure
    I can only suggest separating the "allowing ..." part into a separate sentence, and a slight rewording, which I did, but it would be nice if someone else gave it a look.
    I reworded the sentence, now it's two sentences and reads all fine. Parcly Taxel 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fluorine is highly toxic." - this sentence is pretty short. Perhaps add "to living organisms" afterward, to give it a bit more girth?
    The short sentence makes the statement stronger, doesn't it? Regardless, doesn't the word "toxic" already imply that the toxicity is a property only living organisms interact with? (I can't word it better, sorry.) I mean, wouldn't "toxic to living organisms" be just the same as "toxic" (and thus also a tautology)?
No, and some people use it when referring to (poisoning) a catalyst. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I get the idea, statement has been "inflated" for clarity per the original request. Now! @Nergaal, Hurricanehink, John, Aa77zz, Sandbh:! You support the nomination? Parcly Taxel 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Make sure you link ppm and explain what it is.
  • "−188 °C" - this and all other temperatures should have conversion to Fahrenheit per WP:ACCESS
  • Note 5 looks like the image should be first, with the text following, but right now it looks messy
    I did what I could, set the image before the text. It's the best thing that came to my mind.
  • "Hydrofluoric acid, aqueous hydrogen fluoride," - I don't think a comma is appropriate here. I think you should either add "acid, which is aqueous...", or make it a dash.
  • "3 kg" - in lbs?
  • When was the "Montreal Protocol"?

All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Your comments are valid and good (really), so I followed them except where noted.--R8R (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the quick replies, they all look great! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mirokado (support)[edit]

Just a few comments.

  • Reactivity:
    • "a weak peroxide bond": as opposed to a strong peroxide bond, or intending to clarify that peroxide bonds are weak? I think the latter, in which case "the weak peroxide bond" would be clearer
    • "nitrogen requires an electric discharge at elevated temperatures for reaction due to its very strong triple bonds" The N2 molecule has one triple bond, so I think it will be better to use the singular: "nitrogen requires an electric discharge at elevated temperatures for reaction due to its very strong triple bond"
  • Occurrence / Earth: There is no explanation of the thousand-fold increase in relative abundance between the universe and Earth : how does this relate to the mentioned cosmic rarity of fluorine compared to neighbouring elements?
    • Explanation not required. Rare in the universe does not necessarily mean rare in Earth's crust. @R8R Gtrs:: mind if you wanna pull out a ref of some sort for this?
    • This comes from two reasons: fluorine's reactivity, which makes fluorine, which leaves stars and comes to Earth, chemically react with rocks, after which fluorine becomes a part of rocks and doesn't leave the Earth; and the fact fluorine which stays in stars is not safe there, and may undergo nuclear reactions with other elements (which makes it not fluorine anymore). Besides, the rarity of fluorine in stars is explained, with this very argument :) --R8R (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Compounds / Metals: "Alkaline earth difluorides possess strong ionic bonds as well but are insoluble": I find myself asking, why?
    • No need to ask about that. There already is a reference and that's freely available – have a look at it. That's what they were for, after all.
    • This once was in the article when it was 90 KB of text alone and was cut when making the article have a readable size; the reason is low (high absolute values, but negative) lattice energies, which are lower (larger absolute values, but negative) than sums of hydration energies, making it more favorable to stay undissolved, as the undissolved matter has the lowest internal energy. (I remember, I was intrigued with this at some point as well). I understand why you're asking, but I wouldn't add this, as this seems more of a detail, and this is an overview article.--R8R (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Environmental concerns / Biopersistence: "... since their biological metabolisms are hard." : sounds clumsy, how about: "since they are not readily biologically degraded"
  • Biological role / Natural biochemistry: I couldn't find a nice simple definition for "ω-fluoro" by following the fatty acids wl or googling, can you clarify somehow?
  • Note 17: Perhaps it would be better to use the French spelling for Nicklès since it changes the pronounciation a lot: either Jérôme Nicklès or his full name François Joseph Jérôme Nicklès (I looked here while checking this)

-- Mirokado (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Fixed all problems you mentioned, with accompanying commentary. Parcly Taxel 01:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I've left the two points where where I think the content could be a bit more stand-alone in case we can think of any change, but they are pretty minor and should not affect featured article status, so supporting now. -- Mirokado (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo (toxicity, headings; support)[edit]

An informative, well-illustrated and ambitious article. Some things are not quite clear to me, though:

The first thing I tried to look up was what makes fluorine toxic in what I assume is its pure form, and at the same time beneficial to oral hygiene. This information is somewhat disjointed and slightly contradictory, though. Under "Toxicity" it's claimed to be toxic. Period. No qualifications, but much later "Biological role" explains exactly how it isn't toxic. Later still, "Precautions" goes back to toxicity again. I understand that there's a difference between various compounds and whatnot, but the article isn't quite stating the obvious.

Would you try to explain one more time, I'm not sure I get it? I specified under "Toxicity" that elemental fluorine is toxic, because the whole "Characteristics" section discusses elemental fluorine only, as done with any other element article; "Biological role" discusses (obviously) some organic compounds, and "Precautions" discusses effects of HF and fluoride ions. There is no contradiction I see; but would you point me to it?
"Elemental" helps, but why not point out in the section heading as well? "Elemental characteristics" perhaps? If the standard formula is unclear, it doesn't hurt tweaking it.
If "Biological role" is actually about organic compounds, why isn't it under "Organic compounds"? Does that also mean that "Industry and applications" is about inorganic chemistry? This may be obvious to you, but not to everyone.
Peter Isotalo 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As explained below, this disjoint information problem should have been solved with my restructuring of sections. In particular the parts saying that fluorine is toxic and those indicating otherwise have been split into distant sections. Parcly Taxel 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand the table of contents. Why are medical and agricultural applications placed under "Biological role" rather than "Industry and applications"? They're very clearly about industrial applications, not biology per se. The sub-heading "Natural biochemistry" hints at the rather artificial separation of the biochemical industry from steel, polymers and whatnot. And why the manual-like "Precautions"? Why isn't this grouped with "Toxicity" or the likes? Peter Isotalo 11:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Sandbh's framework of the article which I copyedited really was disjointed in several places. Now I'm considering a substantial rearrangement of sections based on the zinc article:
  • Two sections of applications, the medicinal and the industrial (the latter includes agriculture), since we have so much.
  • Unification of the Toxicity subsection from Characteristics, the Biological role section and the precautions – there's so little about them.
…and in fact, I've done it already. I think it makes the contents more coherent; what do you think Isotalo? Parcly Taxel 10:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I hesitate to put precautions, HF (aq), and F (aq) under "Biological role": they're more about toxicity than about F playing a positive role in biochemistry. Also I would not call the section "natural occurrence", which sounds to me as though it was talking about F in the earth's crust, the Solar System, or something (which is already above).
Since F is the subject of the article, the primary focus, I feel, should be the element (F2). So I think the scheme should be that toxicity without qualification is on F2, and if you are talking about other F compounds, you must have the qualification.
I agree with moving the medicinal and agricultural applications out of "biological role".
I've made a couple of edits to make this new scheme better. Nevertheless, I would like to also hear what R8R has to say on this. Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I am too late to see any changes being done, but I think the page as of now is pretty fine (except I moved the Environmental concerns section from between Medical applications and Biological role to the bottom, as the former clearly wasn't the best place to keep it, between two interrelated sections) --R8R (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you give me a couple of days so I could get a great reference book I have so I could check it and (thereafter) think what should be done best?--R8R (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No rush on my account.
Peter Isotalo 13:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Minor issue, really, but rearranging the information improves the article quite a bit. Support.
Peter Isotalo 05:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Trader[edit]

Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Trader is a turn-based strategy video game developed by Slovakia-based studio 4Kids Games. It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS. The game was designed using Microsoft XNA, and its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals. The game consists of a player exploring and trading in a sixteenth century cartography-influenced map with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian. → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by JimmyBlackwing

My main focus during FAC reviews is criterion 1a, so that's what I'll be judging below.

  • "Slovakia-based" —> "Slovakian".
  • "(unrelated to 4Kids Entertainment)" — This should be removed. It has no source, it isn't part of the article body and it's basically irrelevant.
  • "It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS." — Full dates are tedious to read. Best left for the infobox. Shortened version: "It was released in 2010 for Microsoft Windows, the Xbox 360 and iOS."
  • "its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals." —> "it was developed in one year by six people."
  • Sentence rewrite suggestion:
  • "The game consists of a The player controls a ship that exploring explores and trading trades in an Age of Discovery-style map sixteenth century cartography-influenced map, while seeking with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts that will to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian." (italics signify an addition)
  • "The idea behind the game was influenced by board games and video games such as" —> "Ancient Trader's design was influenced by that of board games and of the video games".
  • "Elite and Advance Wars" — Need italics.
  • "to design the overall game's appearance, and with Milan Malik to compose the game's score." —> "on the game's graphic design, and with Milan Malik on the game's score."
  • "received positive response" —> "received a positive response".
  • "Legendo Entertainment, and" — Comma isn't necessary.
  • Sentence rewrite:
  • "The player controls a ship, and their main mission is to collect and seeks out three powerful artifacts needed to challenge and to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian."
  • Another:
  • "However, before being able to locate obtaining these artifacts, the player must explore the map and to gather amounts of three different commodities: tea, spices, and fruit."
  • "The map consists of a main sea surrounded by land" —> "The map consists of a landlocked sea".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Sea creatures and enemy ships appear randomly across the map as they and challenge the player for gold or loot commodities in a card minigame."
  • "side quests" — Wikilink this to Quest (video gaming).
  • "Whirlpools act as teleports that, when activated, take" —> "Whirlpools transport".
  • A rewrite:
  • "The player can also sometimes encounters message bottles that clear away fog of war previously clouded areas of on the map to reveal hidden ports."
  • "the entire map is covered by wind clouds that disappear" —> "the entire map is obscured by fog of war that disappears".
  • "moved across the horizontal and vertical axes, but not diagonally" —> "moved horizontally and vertically, but not diagonally"
  • "steps" — Kind of a vague word. Perhaps, "moves" wikilinked to Game mechanics#Movement?
  • "and then the artificial intelligence" — "after which the artificial intelligence".
  • "located at a port" —> "docked at a port".
  • "drawing cards" —> "drawing colored and numbered cards".
  • "the player will be allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts needed to defeat the Ancient Guardian and win the game" —> "the player is allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts and win the game by defeating the Ancient Guardian".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Additionally, Defeating the Guardian awards the player with the "mythical treasure", which consists of additional loot and upgrades that were previously not unavailable in on the map."
  • I don't understand the discussion of the game's multiplayer component. Could you try clarifying it in the article?
  • "the progress will be unrecoverable if the game is closed" —> "all progress is lost if the game is closed".
  • Why do you discuss the multiplayer mode twice? Redundant information should be merged or removed.
  • "Ancient Trader is the first video game developed by Slovakia-based" —> "Ancient Trader was the first video game developed by the Slovakian"

I'll be back later to finish the review. In the meantime, a review-back on Thief II would be most appreciated. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by JimmyBlackwing, continued

Sorry for the delay; I've been busy.

  • "Four people comprised the team that worked in the development of the game" —> "The development team consisted of four people".
  • A rewrite:
  • "The music score was composed by Milan Malik, while animations were designed and the graphics were animated by Jan Ohajsky."
  • A rewrite:
  • "Levius and his girlfriend dedicated tested and balanced the game's mechanics for around two months to test and balance the game's mechanics along with his girlfriend, as well as gathering groups of and they invited friends to play the game 'without explaining anything[,] to see if they can understand the rules and controls.'"
  • A rewrite:
  • "He Levius worked with Vcelka to design Ancient Trader's appearance., and he contributed graphical Levius, who designed some details like paper textures and clouds.,revealed that The map's texture was based on a base of the maps' textures was arranged from the scan of an old military map of Slovakia."
  • Maybe include an image of Theatrum Orbis Terrarum in Development to go along with Schilling's quote?
  • A rewrite:
  • "For the Xbox 360 version of Ancient Trader, the team introduced a feature options to reduce the color saturation in the game and to change the amount of color in the game allow players to decide how much color they wanted to have."
  • "other recent genre-related" — Just drop this part.
  • "and vividness" —> "and the vividness".
  • "gave the game a score of 8 out of 10" — We know this from the review box.
  • "as to be a" — Drop the "to be".
  • "Legendo Entertainment, and" — Comma isn't needed.
  • "included an improved AI, new player avatars and the save feature" —> "includes improved AI, new player avatars and the save feature".
  • "it was too far from the original indie game" —> "it deviated too much from the original indie game".

The prose isn't too bad, but there are enough issues that I'm going to have to oppose until it's been tidied up. It shouldn't take too long to fix. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it needs a bit of work. I'll do it later this week :) → Call me Hahc21 04:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Fanny Bullock Workman[edit]

Nominator(s): Adam Cuerden (talk), Figureskatingfan (Christine), and Wadewitz, 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Fanny Bullock Workman, mountaineer, rock climber, suffragette, and feminist. It was one of the last articles being worked on by Adrianne Wadewitz before her untimely death, and between her excellent work and those of us wishing to finish it, we'd like to raise this up in her memory.

Okay, so what have I done? Well, I've reviewed it, fixed up some copyediting, checked and improved the images - probably will try to improve them a bit more through restoration and such, but that's surely not a requirement before nominating here - and her books are more than amply covered by my local library. So, let's do this! Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fanny_bullock_workman_d_1922.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh

  • Something to get out of the way early on: there are too many quotations that are unattributed and that could be paraphrased. e.g., in Move to Europe and cycling tours, "the role of "devoted mother" and instead became an "adventurer and author"" (can be paraphrased; if not, attribute them); "lyrical descriptions"; "The Workman's works are colonialist in that they describe the people they meet and observe as "at best as exotic or unusual, at worst as primitive or even subhuman"" (be clear about who wrote that); "commonplace" (surely this can be reworded... it's only one word).
  • I'm wary of what appear to be editorial summaries. e.g., "Popular reviewers, on the other hand, enjoyed the book. One reviewer in The Standard, wrote "We have no hesitation in saying that Dr. and Mrs. Workman have written one of the most remarkable books of travel of recent years."[16]" If No. 16 is the source of that first, summarizing, sentence, then add 16 explicitly. If it's not, then the first sentence needs a different source or to be cut. Another example: "Their rivalry demonstrated that women could climb in the remotest and most difficult terrain of the world, and that they were equal to male mountaineers" (needs a direct source, as it's hard for the reader to judge if this is the writer's synthesis or has been asserted explicitly by others).
I went through and sourced the quotes some more and did some paraphrasing, as per your request, which I believe will do away with the editorializing, even though I think that Wadewitz's method follows how quotes are handled in some academic literature. When Adam gets a hold of the sources, he can check for accuracy.
  • Small things: "the 45 miles (72 km)-long" (the hyphen is needed, but "miles" must be singular; there are several examples); multiple sources together should be in numerical order; use same date formatting throughout (e.g., infobox dob and dod differ); either abbreviate months or don't (don't is preferable – MOS:MONTH). EddieHugh (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the above, which was due to use of the convert template. I'm pretty sure I got them all; perhaps someone can go behing me and catch what I've missed or correct any errors.
Thank you for your comments; My sources are at the library, but I'll fix what I can without them tonight, and try to fix the library ones within a day or two (presuming Christine doesn't get to them first). Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I add my thanks for your comments; they'll make for a stronger article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Squall Leonhart[edit]

Nominator(s): Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional protaganist of the game Final Fantasy VIII created by Squaresoft, now Square Enix, in 1999 for the Sony Playstation. All references are working, the article has been Copy-edited and Peer reviewed. It was given GA status in 2006. I believe that since then sufficient improvement has been made to bring it up to FA status. Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark Kent (Smallville)[edit]

Nominator(s):  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional character that appeared in the television series Smallville. We have worked hard to really exhaust all possible sources and develop this article to the fullest of its capabilities. I recently had the article copy edited by the League of Copy Editors. I appreciate any feedback (no one visited the peer review before this) and support to make sure that his page meets all the necessary criteria for FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Hi Bignole, I'm sorry it took so long for you to get feedback on this nomination. Unfortunately I can't agree at this point that the article meets the FA criteria. There are several dead links and lots of primary or questionable sources. There are also many style issues: source formatting is inconsistent, publications should be italicized, long quotes should be blockquoted without quotation marks, etc. I know your PR nom was unsucessful, but this does look like it needs more polishing before FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Love Club EP[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) and Adabow (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about New Zealand singer Lorde's debut major release, The Love Club EP. The EP revealed Lorde's fear and nervousness of becoming a new artist. For the development of the article, I have found as many sources as I could, so I think that this article is fully comprehensive now. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions to help improve the article. Thanks, Simon (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

  • Looks great. Some points- Okay now I think this article needs some work. No worries, everything can easily be bettered.
  • "Lorde admitted that she was inspired by hip hop music-influenced music, such as Lana Del Rey" - consider changing "hip hop music-influenced music" to "hip hop music-influenced artists" to avoid repetition of "music." Using "artist" will also fit better with Lana Del Rey. In fact, even the "music" in "hip hop music-influenced" is not needed. I'd change it to "hip hop-influenced"
  • "It features Lorde's "smoky" vocal delivery" - awkward wording. Consider changing to "Lorde's vocal delivery on the album was described as "smoky" by Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail. Another critic, Chris Schulz of The New Zealand Herald, commented that her voice "seems to come from someone twice her age.""
"According to Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail, Lorde's vocals on the EP are "smoky"" - These kinds of sentences look okay on good articles. For a featured article, you're gonna have to come up with a better, more refined sentence.
  • "Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener" - Try adding some variation. Perhaps "New Zealand Listener critic Jim Pinckney"
  • " are structure[d is missing] in a short story manner" - Consider changing to "are structured in the manner of a short story" or "opined that the structure of the songs is similar to that of a short story." Also don't use "Lorde's songs"
  • More soon --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Gee, thanks! I have addressed all of your concerns. Simon (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The "short story" issue has not been addressed. Also see above for a new comment on the "smoky" voice thing. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How does it look now? Simon (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes looking good --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "it discusses Lorde feigning confidence" - the "discusses" just doesn't fit well, in my opinion.
  • "the two tracks" - you can remove "the"
  • "the former draws from" - draws what?
  • " Kanye West'" →" Kanye West's"
  • "high life" seems to have been directly borrowed from the Guardian. You can easily replace it with something life "criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich"
  • "The EP's title track" → The title track of the EP (try to avoid using apostrophes with nouns that are not proper nouns)
  • There you go. Best, Simon (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lyrically, the EP discusses "nervousness [Lorde] might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself"" - This sentence is contrived and changes the meaning of what the original writer meant. Reading the article by NZ Listener and specifically the sentence "Resolutely self-aware and confident, thankfully without the precociousness of talent-show youth, O'Connor displays remarkably little of the nervousness you might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself," it is obvious that the writer just meant that Lorde is confident and does not display nervousness. It does not seem to explain the lyrical theme of the EP.
  • Ah, right. How does it look now? Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "commercially release the EP for sales" - Isn't "for sales" redundant? Using the word "commercially" covers that
  • Moved "for sales". Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the interview, Lorde's manager says "So initially we gave away 60,000 tracks." Do "tracks" equate to an entire EP? ("After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP for sales"). Has the EP been downloaded 60,000 times?
I don't know whether individual tracks were available for download. I've replaced the citation used, which verifies that it was in fact 60,000 downloads of the EP. Adabow (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @WonderBoy1998: All your issues have been addressed. Many thanks, Simon (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "continuing to praise" and " continued to praise" are very similar, hence they sound repetitive. Modify one of them]\
  • Done. Simon (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it odd how the lead mentions that it had sold 60,000 in the US, but not that it had gone platinum in NZ and Australia
  • I have added a sentence in the lead. Simon (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I support now, although I would still suggest improving the prose a bit and make it great. Right now it's just good. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • In the infobox, I would drop the "At", remove the small text from "Morningside, Auckland, New Zealand", and place it in parentheses.
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would replace instances of "the US" with "the United States"; I forget where I heard it from, but it suggested that "United States" be used as a noun and "U.S." be used as an adjective when describing something (i.e. the U.S. Billboard 200).
"US" can be used as a noun. See [7]. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you include an as-of date to verify its sales in the United States?
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the word "admitted" in the "Background and production" section, how about something like "acknowledged", "commented", etc.?
Agreed; changed, thanks. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Composition" section, you mention that "Royals" was replaced by "Swingin Party" in the United States. If I remember correctly, this was done after "Royals" was released on Pure Heroine, is there any source you could add in that would verify this if this was the case?
I've see what I can dig up... Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've explained that the different tracklisting only came into affect in September 2013. Adabow (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Release and promotion" section, "Self-release (music)" should be relinked to "Self-publishing".
Why? Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the beginning of the "Reception" section, I would add a brief sentences about how the record received generally favorable reviews, just so it is available at a quick glance.
With only three critics mentioned, I feel that could be a bit dishonest to readers. There is a table with star ratings there, which offers a quick summary. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the track listing, can you reformat the title of the "New Zealand iTunes Store bonus track" so it matches the other two track listings?
I've slightly reworked the entire thing. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks in good shape, after these comments are addressed I'll check back in! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: How does the article look now? Simon (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, happy to give my support! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

  • Background and production
Can we find a luckier solution for "spotted"? Perhaps "discovered", or if you have a better idea of your own.
I think "spotted" is the best solution here. Simon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"started to write songs by herself"→"started writing songs herself"; better flow, I think.
Agree. Done. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, the A&R paired Lorde with Joel Little–the A&R is MacLachlan, right?
Of course. As stated in the first sentence of the section "A&R representative" Scott MacLachlan. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, maybe you should replace "the A&R" with "MacLachlan". Surely there are other A&R officials from the label.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
MacLachlan is quite repetitive in this case. And in the article there is only one A&R listed. Simon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps he would be a better solution? That ambiguous "A&R" can be any representative of Universal Music.
Done. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
yet criticised its "bullshit" references–references to what?
Already stated in the section. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
My bad. I wanted you to paraphrase the "expensive alcohol, beautiful clothes and beautiful cars" quote. It sounds like cliché.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have this quote paraphrased. It's already got its meaning. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Lorde wrote the songs' lyrics"–only "the lyrics" would be fine
Fixed. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Release and promotion
This section reads much like a chronological table with all those dates and events altogether. Can you lessen this style of writing or overhaul the prose?
Nah, I just follow other recent FAs. I think it's the standard quality of album articles. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Reception
This title doesn't seem to fit the content of the section. We are presented with the certification, chart positions, and accolades, contradictory to what is stated in the heading.
I think they are related to each other. Appearing on charts, receiving accolades and certifications are also a type of "reception". Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we at least use sub-headings to differentiate the critical reception from the accolades and commercial success?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If so the sub-sections will be extremely short. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The name of the Allmusic critic should be stated.
In the source given there is no name of the critic. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should say just Allmusic?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The "indeed" in Schulz's quote seems unnecessary.
Removed "indeed". Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you paraphrase "fully formed"?
Since "fully formed" is quite misleading, I have removed the term. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Avoid mentioning the ratings in the prose, since they are already given in the table.
Per WP:MOSALBUM. Simon (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no mentioning that the ratings should be presented both in the prose and table. My suggestion is of practical reasons, to avoid stating one information twice.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed AllMusic rating in the box. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
My point wasn't to remove the Allmusic grade. The writing style should be consistent here. Either present all of the ratings in table, or avoid using table and write them in the prose. A mixture of those two is not acceptable; neither is repeating information at both places.
Is your point to remove the star ratings in the paragraph? Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sales and certifications
The US certification is missing.
Nielsen SoundScan only list sales here. According to the RIAA database, the EP does not receive any certifications. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we somehow notify that, lets say by putting slash or N.A. maybe?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying, but seems to be impossible. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Additional notes on prose
For example, you can say just "production" instead of "overall production" or "style" instead of "musical style" in the lead, hence this is musical item, right?
Additionally, the during is extra in "Lorde performed during various concerts"; it is commonly accepted to use "6× Platinum" over "septuple platinum".
  • Septuple is also accepted, but I have replaced it. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"all of which were written by Lorde"–I assume "all of" can be easily dropped without changing the meaning of the sentence
  • Removed. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"Bravado" is a chamber pop[8] and electropop song[10]–I think this is a case of WP:SYNTH. One critic says "this is chamber pop", another one says "this is electropop song", and you combined those two opinions into one sentence.
  • After considering this, I have removed "electropop" because Village Voice is not as suitable as NZ Herald. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please notify me if you have any questions related to the notes. I'll come back later to check the progress. Good luck.--Retrohead (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They are highly appreciated! Regards, Simon (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as the majority of my concern were not addressed or explained. Though the article is well-researched and referenced, it has some issues with prose comprehensiveness that can not be overlooked.--Retrohead (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of them have been addressed. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrohead, I have replied to your concerns. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Simon, my opinion remains the same. The prose is quite garrulous at few places, as pointed in the posts above.--Retrohead (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrohead, how about this time? Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
About the rating, you can go either as in Confusion, where the ratings are presented in the prose, or as I suggested, using table for the grades and avoid mentioning them in the text. Using a mixture of both, as in the present state, is not consistent.--Retrohead (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Retrohead: Okay, I got it! How about it now? Simon (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I definitely see progress in the work, but I've got a few concerns left. The "writer at AllMusic" was returned although you've said above that you had fulfilled that note. I still think that "favourable review" is more suitable than the three star rating already written in the box. There's some paraphrasing left to be done, and here are some additional notes:
  • Little created the melodies–perhaps "composed" is a better solution?
  • After being freely downloaded–freely is extra
  • released digitally–digitally released
  • Lorde replaced Frank Ocean, at the–the comma is extra
  • At the 56th Annual Grammy Awards (2014)–you can say 2014 Grammy Awards, which is far simpler
  • As I previously specified, please try using "day, month, year" structures less frequently. Not that this is "wrong", but it certainly drags away the reader's attention.
I'll stop the review here. My overall impression, as WonderBoy1998 already stated, is that the prose maybe is of GA caliber, but has certain flaws that keep the article away from FA status. This article, according to me, shouldn't exemplify how featured albums should read, and shouldn't be placed in the same category as articles such as Marquee Moon or Are You Experienced, for example.--Retrohead (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FreshBlueLotus[edit]


  • The Love Club EP is the debut extended play (EP) by New Zealand recording artist Lorde. ("the debut" or "a debut").
  • "the" debut is grammartically correct here. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At the age of 12, Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan and began writing songs by herself ("and" inhibits clarity about age. In the Background and production – "Lorde was spotted … at the age of 12, ... At the age of 13, Lorde started writing songs herself. "). Recommend: "In her early teens, Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan when she began writing songs by herself."
  • Why? I think mentioning the exact age is more suitable. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In December 2011, MacLachlan paired Lorde with producer Joel Little and within three weeks, Lorde and Little co-wrote and produced all of the songs for the EP. Recommend: "In December 2011, MacLachlan paired Lorde with producer Joel Little and within three weeks, they co-wrote and produced all the songs for the EP."
  • I have changed to "the pair" Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In November 2012, the EP was released for free via SoundCloud. Recommend: "In November 2012, the free version of the EP was released via SoundCloud." (I agree it doesn’t match with "In November 2012, Lorde self-released The Love Club EP through her SoundCloud account for free download". The fact that "Lorde self-released" it should be mentioned.)
  • Rewritten. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • An indie rock-influenced electronica album, The Love Club EP received general acclaim from music critics, who praised its overall production and compared its musical style to works by Sky Ferreira, Florence & the Machine and Lana Del Rey. Recommend: "received a general acclaim from the music critics".
  • It is uncountable. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Acclaim" cannot be used as a noun in this way; I have reworded this part of the sentence. "The" is incorrect before "critics", as that would imply that all critics (of the world, or some other undefined set) acclaimed the album. "Critics" alone means "some critics". Adabow (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To promote The Love Club EP, Lorde performed during various concerts and "Royals" was released as a single. Recommend: "To promote The Love Club EP, Lorde performed in various concerts and also released "Royals" as a single."
  • During is more correct than "in". Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Background and production

  • Lorde … at the age of 12. At the age of 13, Lorde … . in December 2011, when Lorde had just turned 15. Recommend: Try replacing the overemphasis on age with one term to indicate she was a prodigy; e.g. "A prodigy in her early teens, Lorde at the age of 12 …".


  • Critics compared the EP's musical style to works by Sky Ferreira, Florence and the Machine and Lana Del Rey. ("The" critics … ?)
  • Editor Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener opined that Lorde's songs are structured in a manner of a short story. ("The" editor … ?)
  • "Royals" and "Million Dollar Bills" are two tracks that criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich ("the" two tracks … ?)
  • The title track of the EP, "The Love Club", discusses the befriendment of "a bad crowd". (Is "befriendment" a standard word? Sounds a tough one for me; couldn’t find in my thesaurus.)

Release and promotion

  • After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP. ("After a free download of 60,000, UMG …")
  • I am not sure that "a free download..." is acceptable. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On 8 March 2013, The Love Club EP was released digitally in Australia,[20] New Zealand,[21] and the United States.[22] (club inline citations 20, 21, 22 at the end after the full stop.)
  • That would be quite misleading. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The compact disc (CD) edition of the record was released in New Zealand on 10 May,[23] in Australia a week later,[24] and in the United States on 9 July.[25] (again club inline citations 23, 24, 25 at the end after the full stop. "The compact disc (CD) edition" or simply "The CD version …"; CD is compact disc is fairly commonly known.)
  • Not done the first issue. The second issue, I have changed compact disc to CD. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Royals" was released as the only single from the EP; on 3 June 2013, Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio. (Are the two statements joined with a semicolon related?) Recommend: ""Royals" was released as the only single from the EP in the US. On 3 June 2013, Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio." In lead "the US" – "In the US, the record charted at number 23", here "US"; maintain consistency.
  • Done. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


  • A writer from AllMusic gave The Love Club EP three stars out of five, calling it "evocative", continuing to praise the albums "sultry, sinewy" sound and drawing comparison to the work of Sky Ferreira, Florence + the Machine, Lana Del Rey, and Grimes. Recommend: "The EP received three stars out of five from a writer at AllMusic who called it "evocative" and praised its "sultry, sinewy" sound while comparing it to the work of Sky Ferreira, Florence & the Machine, Lana Del Rey, and Grimes." (Sky Ferreira, Florence "&" the Machine – currently there is a "+" sign.)
  • Slightly rewritten. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A delight to read! --FreshBlueLotus (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I stumbled here from this article talk page, and thought I'd comment! Didn't have an account so created one! --FreshBlueLotus (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are very appreciated! Thank you, Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • The first instance of New Zealand should be linked, not the second
  • Done. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan and began writing songs by herself"..... I don't think the "by herself" part is needed here.
  • Removed. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lorde acknowledged that she was inspired by hip hop-influenced music artists"..... keep it simple- she took inspiration from hip-hop influenced artists.
  • Done. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "when she was on holiday after finishing a school term" → "during a school break"
  • If so, we can't know that she had just finished a school term. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's trivial content, i.e.: irrelevant to the article. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, fixed. Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this clearly. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If the Background section mentions The New Zealand Herald, then another mention of it in, say, Critical Reception should not be linked. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Prism. I went and unlinked them myself. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Geez, thanks, Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ella Yelich-O'Connor" should link to Lorde
  • Where should I link? Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It was for "Track listing", but I've done this myself. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not much to do here, really. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Done all. Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Now I officially support! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Pedro[edit]

  • Like Snuggums said, there's not much to be done here. However, I did note the absence of AllMusic from the ratings table, and I agree with some points that Snuggums noted (the ones that I commented on, above). I Support this nomination but I want to see those points fixed. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this page for FA. I have addressed the prose issues from the previous candidature with the help of Curly Turkey and believe the article now meets the criteria. Please note if there is any unresolved point and I will happily fix the problem.--Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Megadeth's second studio album was produced on a small budget from Combat Records. Not satisfied with these financial limitations, Megadeth soon left Combat and signed with Capitol Records. Capitol bought the rights to the upcoming album and hired producer Paul Lani to remix the earlier recordings. Released in late 1986, Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? was recorded on a budget of $25,000 and had clearer studio production and more sophisticated songwriting.: Is $25,000 the Combat or Capitol budget?
  • "On the road, things escalated from a small border skirmish into a full-on raging war", Mustaine later recalled, "I think a lot of us were inconsistent [on the 1988 tour] because of the guy we were waiting for after the show.": can you show this quote with the original punctuation?
  • Worth mentioning who Megdeth lost the 1993 Grammy to? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • and spanned eleven months, becoming Megadeth's most extensive tour to date.: but diidn't the 1987 tour last 72 weeks?
  • press response to the album was mixed. The Los Angeles Times noted the album for carrying diverse compositions, and described it as a "rousing balance" between the older material and experimental tunes.: We're told it got mixed reviews, and then are given a single quote that doesn't reflect that at all. If the quote is meant to introduce the idea of the diversity of the compositions, I'd reword it so it doesn't seem as if you're about to give a sample of the mixed reviews.
  • Mustaine fired manager Bud Prager and self-produced the album.: meaning it was produced by Mustaine or Megadeth?
  • Menza was dismissed shortly after rehearsing began. Mustaine stated that he was insufficiently prepared and "it just didn't work out". Unable to prepare for the physical demands of a full US tour, Menza was sent home a few days before the start of the tour in support of Megadeth's upcoming album: was he dismaissed twice? Was the rehearsal Menza was fired for rehearsal for the tour or the recording? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In May 2006, Megadeth announced that its eleventh studio album, United Abominations, was near completion. Although its release was originally scheduled for October 2006, Mustaine later revealed that the band was "putting the finishing touches on it", and postponed the release to May of the following year.: Would you object if I cut this down to Although scheduled for October 2006, Megadeth's eleventh album, United Abominations, was released May of the following year. or even just Megadeth's eleventh album, United Abominations, was released May 2007.? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In an interview in for Crypt Magazine, drummer Shawn Drover stated plans for a thirteenth Megadeth album.: This sounds trivial to me. Can we drop it? Actually, I think the whole paragraph could be condensed quite a bit by dropping these kinds of details and jumping right into th ealbum's recording and release. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Megadeth left Roadrunner Records for Mustaine's label, Tradecraft,: What's the story with this label? Was it freshly founded? If not, how come Megadeth wasn't on it before? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At the final show, Jason Newsted joined Megadeth onstage to perform "Phantom Lord", a song Mustaine had written during his stint with Metallica.: Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention Newsted's relation to Metallica? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • troubles arose concerning the band playing sideshows with Newsted: meaning they violated their contract by playing these shows, or what kind of troubles? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There was a mix of "number <digit>" and "number <word>" throughout. I made them all "number <word>", but feel free to go the other way. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The $25,000 budget would be from Combat Records. And about the tours being italicized or not, I think they shouldn't be. I'll see the liner notes for the quote. Regarding the Grammy issue, I don't think it's worth mentioning that Nine Inch Nails took the award that year. About the 2001 album, it was produced solely by Mustaine (I think that is stated pretty clear above). Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see it in the MoS, but it came up a few times on the MoS talk page, and each time it was recommended not to italicize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "self-produced": yes, grammatically that's what is said, but it's still ambiguous as the last time an album was "self produced" (Killing is my Business) it was done by the band. It leaves the reader wondering if what's being said is what's really what was meant. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the information about Thirteen is trivial. As for United Abominations, it might stay since we're talking about an album delay, something that has not happened with any of the previous albums. But I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you'll keep it or not. But if omitting the sentence, please post it to the album article in order not to lose the information. By the way, thanks for the awesome job you're doing.--Retrohead (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm done with copyediting. If you can get through the last couple of little things above, I'll be ready to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Megadeth didn't play the Soundvawe festival because the concerts with Newsted weren't originally scheduled, or in other words, the tour promoter violated the initial contract. As for Menza, he was fired once in 2004, during rehearsal, with the explanation that he wasn't prepared. It's kinda odd that the tour started before the album was released, but the band was rehearsing for the tour, not that they were doing recording sessions.--Retrohead (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding Ellefson's departure, Mustaine accused Ellefson of slandering him and lying about him to the press that the arm injury was fake.: the source for this is Dave Mustaine, and I'm not quite sure this really summarizes what he said, either. Anyways, I've removed it. Can you find a better source for the Ellefson situation? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In the book Mustaine: A Heavy Metal Memoir, Dave said the same thing. I've gone through Ellefson's biography as well, but there is no mentioning of this incident. Honestly, you can't expect Ellefson to admit this is his own book. But since is a third-party source, I think we can go with that one.--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The entire article is a quotation of Mustaine. Mustaine is not a third-party source—he's a primary source, and we must avoid primary sources when the details are (potentially damaging) details about living persons (see WP:BLP). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, removed the entire sentence according to the Wiki policy. Regarding the cancelled shows with Newsted, I'm not sure even the journalist himself knows what the real reason was. I saw that you re-worded it, so I think we can cross that too. As for the quote from the liner notes of So Far, So Good... So What!, it is cited properly, except for the big brackets, which were added so the reader can know to which event Mustaine is referring to.--Retrohead (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm ready to support on prose. I still highly recommend adding a few more images—at the very, very least you should add the logo, as in Metallica, and I really think you should go with that File:Iron Maiden 05.jpg in the "Influences and style" section as well. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Added the logo with a brief description. Thanks for all of the suggestions and support.--Retrohead (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • Some external links that need to be corrected.
  • I would like to do a check for disambiguation links, but it seems like that tool is down, so I will come back for those later on.
  • In the infobox, "United States" can be abbreviated "U.S."
  • Instead of formatting the titles like "Early days (1983–84)", I would suggest renaming them like "1983–84: Early days", which seems to be a standard practice.
  • I think that the inline music samples in the body of the article can be moved into the "Influences and style" section, which I believe will make them more accessible than they currently are.
  • The "Controversy" section should probably be renamed "Controversies" because there are numerous incidents that they were involved in.
  • The "Studio albums" subheading under "Discography" can be removed because discography sections are only supposed to list studio albums anyway.
  • Also in the "Discography" section, perhaps since there are several studio albums they could be split into two columns?
  • The referral to List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth alone will suffice in the "Awards" section, since it is a well-maintained featured list.

WikiRedactor (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi WikiRedactor. Thanks for the comments, I'll start addressing them as soon as I'm finished with Curly Turkey's ones. Just to note that the list with awards was incorporated because the GA reviewer suggested so, and removing it could drag some oppose from another reviewer. I intended splitting the albums in two columns, but Curly Turkey suggested such a change isn't semantic, so I'll leave that too. The rest of the notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The way it was handled before was unsemantic, but there are other ways to handle it: for example. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor, I've done the majority of the notes. I've made the samples more visible and accessible now, but kept them in the history section since their use is about those events. Also kept the list with the awards, as explained above. Thanks for the constructive input.--Retrohead (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I'm pleased with the corrections made, and am happy to give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

  • "Megadeth is a thrash metal band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 1983 by guitarist Dave Mustaine and bassist David Ellefson, shortly after Mustaine's dismissal from Metallica"- I am not sure the last comma is needed.
  • " A pioneer of the American thrash metal scene, the band is credited as one of the genre's "big four" along with Anthrax, Metallica, and Slayer, who were responsible for thrash metal's development and popularization" - Claims like such should include citations since it is challengeable (See WP:LEADCITE).
  • "prominent" or "common"?
  • " MTV has refused to play two of the band's videos that the network considered to condone suicide."- The lead should generally include general stuff about the band. This seems too specific. The sentence preceding this can cover this by becoming " The group has experienced controversy over its musical approach and lyrics, including canceled concerts and bans of albums and music videos".
  • "Rauch" changes to "Rausch" in the first section.
  • "After considering a few recording labels, Mustaine signed with Combat Records, a New York-based independent label that offered him the highest budget for recording an album and starting a promotional tour"- Seems like Mustaine joined the label, not the entire band.
  • If Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! is referred as such throughout the article, then why even have one instance as Killing Is My Business...?
  • Side comment- Oh god drugs drugs drugs everywhere
  • I don't know if it is intentional or not but this article seems very Mustaine-centric.
  • More comments later. The prose is good in general. I suggest making sure that everything mentioned is supported by the sources and that nothing is directly taken from the sources (without being put in quotations). --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a close look at the prose, there were some spelling and copyediting mistakes that I accidentally overlooked. About the "big four" cite, trust me, there are zillion references on Google Books that confirm that moniker, and that is probably the least challenging aspect of the lead. Indeed, the article sounds Mustaine-centric because Mustaine was actually the band (he is even jokingly nicknamed as "MegaDave"). All other notes, except for the comma in the opening sentence, were addressed.--Retrohead (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That comma could easily be dropped without affecting the meaning, but it's up to you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed that comma is not needed at all. As for the challengeable part, the "probably the least challenging aspect of the lead" is coming from you, who I assume to be a fan of the band. A person like me, who does not know much about the band (other than the fact that they share a song's title with Shakira), may not find this justifiable without supporting sources. If necessary, include the zillion references if that works to make this article stronger. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're honestly challenging the "big four" thing, then perhaps a cite is warranted, but seriously, no more than a few seconds googling would dispel any doubts. The "big four" designation goes back at least as far as the early 90s, when I first heard it. It's a firmly-rooted meme, and cited more than once in the body. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine then. Metal is not big in this part of the world, so maybe that's why I am not aware. Also, the MTV point has not been addressed. And if the Mustaine-centric tone can be explained through the "MegaDave" thing, a suggestion would be to include that term somewhere in the article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction to Curly Turkey's note, the "big four" tag has been used since 1986/87, when all of those bands released the "genre-defining" albums. I thought about dropping the MTV sentence, but do we have an alternative to replace that? The lead will become too brief in that case. As for the article being Mustaine-centric, it is because the sources have focused on him as the band's leading figure. If you check the members timeline, you'll see that him and Ellefson were the only consistent members, in addition to Mustaine writing and composing 98% of the group's songs.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing a sentence will certainly not make the lead "brief." I will not focus on that anymore now and just lay out a few more points.
  • I am randomly reading sections for prose check. There is one in the Controversies section. "The government to pointed the band's mascot Vic Rattlehead..." - You know what's wrong here.
  • I am randomly picking out a sentence and checking whether it is supported by the source. This will be formally done by another editor later I believe. But nevermind- "The band spent nearly four months in the studio with Norman, writing and recording what became Megadeth's most commercially successful effort, Countdown to Extinction" - The Chicago Tribune source does not really confirm this. The four months part is absent, and the "commercially" successful part, while true since it's got their highest certifications, is only implied by the source: it calls the disc "commercial," which is not the equivalent of "commercially successful."
The Google definition of "commercial" states "making or intended to make a profit". Nonetheless, that can easily be confirmed, since it's the only multi-platinum Megadeth album (2× Platinum according to RIAA). The intro being short was specifically pointed in the GA review, and having two videos banned by MTV is not something you commonly see at other artists. Referring to Vic Rattlehead, can you be more specific on what is incorrect with the sentence?--Retrohead (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That google definition is exactly what I meant. As for the double platinum cert: in addition to the book, cite the certifying body database too i.e RIAA (Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications states "Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database."). "The government to pointed the band's mascot Vic Rattlehead as inappropriate and told the members that they would be arrested if they performed." - Either that is a "too" or "pointed to". The choice of words "pointed" and "told" isn't all that great too. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The sentence about the Vic was corrected. As for Countdown being the band's most commercially successful album, even Nielsen Soundscan reported 2,322,000 copies sold in the US, and compared to Youthanasia's 997,000 (their second best) is undoubtedly the group's best seller. It is clearly written in the liner notes that the recording started on January 6 and ended on April 28, 1992→which is nearly four months.--Retrohead (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not doubting that it hasn't sold that much. What I mean to say is that "Released in July 1992, Countdown to Extinction entered the Billboard 200 chart at number two, and earned double-platinum status in the United States" should also cite this. I also suggest using better words than "pointed" and "told" in that Vic sentence. And you need to include all that nielsen stuff and liner notes in this sentence "The band spent nearly four months in the studio with Norman, writing and recording what became Megadeth's most commercially successful effort, Countdown to Extinction" instead of explaining it all to me. My comments stop here.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The liner notes are already cited (ref 63) and the certification number is sourced with Joyner's book. Appreciate your input so far.--Retrohead (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The certification number may be covered in the book, fine. But as per the guideline suggestion of Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications ("Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database"), I highly recommend adding a reference pointing to the RIAA database. I will give my support once this change is made. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The cite was added.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Support --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review
  • Several captions could use editing for grammar
  • File:Megadeth_in_Porto_Alegre.jpg: I think the mascot's image is prominent enough in this image that we would need to consider its copyright status
  • Per WP:SAMPLE, non-free samples should not exceed the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original track. "Since "Peace Sells" is only 4 minutes long, 27 seconds is too long a sample. The FUR for that excerpt is also quite weak.
  • File:MegadethLogoDileo.png: can we add in the actual creator and date of creation for the logo?
  • File:Megadeth_Symphony_of_Destruction.ogg: please fill in the "n.a.". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, according to the Template:Information, the author and the source fields in File:MegadethLogoDileo.png are already filled. Did you mean to incorporate the actual author (Dave Mustaine) and the year the logo was actually created (1986)? As for the first note, can you be a little more precise and mention which of the image captions you find unsuitable?--Retrohead (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, nevermind, the notes were addressed, except for shortening the "Peace Sells" audio, which Dawnseeker2000 should handle it soon. The rationales were properly filled, and the prose in the image and audio descriptions was corrected too.--Retrohead (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Just uploaded a new, shortened version of the sample. Hope this is works out for the article. I chose to take a little extra off (six seconds altogether) so the end would not be mid-sentence. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source review

Note: Firstly, I feel that I should make clear that I have had significant involvement with this article, and the topic at large. If that is deemed to constitute a conflict of interest, please feel free to dismiss my input. I was asked to do a source check. I am a novice at FA discussions, so please bear with me.

  • The first thing I wanted to bring up, what's the status of Blabbermouth, in regards to it being an RS or not? I seem to remember some debate as to whether it was or not. Personally, I consider it so, and use it as a reference myself, but for the sake of objectiveness, I think I should being this up.
  • Another thing, when an article is written by an unnamed staff member, the author format should be standardized, there's a few variants present. Should either be standardized as "Staff writer" or "[Name of publication] staff", in my opinion.
  • Citation 5 is from a fansite, It seems to be an archived thing from Hit Parader. I think this is legit, and since it is cited as originally being from Hit Parader I would let it stay, if there is not any other source available.
  • Citation 31: is similar to citation 5. from, seems to be an archive of a legitimate article
  • Citation 32: concerns me. Is Metal Rules a legitimate source? I'm leaning towards no, personally. Input?
  • Citation 38: same as #5 and 31; usage seems legitimate
  • Citation 46: is "" legit in the context it's being used in?
  • Citation 65: Goldmine magazine... I can't say I am familiar with this publication. I am assuming it is legit, but never hurts to ask.
  • Citation 86: same as #5, 31, 38; usage seems legitimate though
  • Citations 87 & 88: Both are Youtube videos citing appearances on Letterman. Does the copyright status of the videos matter, or are they ok as is?
  • Citation 94: same as #5, 31, 38, 86; usage seems legitimate though
  • Citation 102: Metal Sludge. I don't like this source, it seems a bit lacking on the quality scale. It supports the thing about Menza finding a tumor in his knee. That seems like a fact that should be verifiable in a better source, and I believe a better source should be used, if possible. If there is a consensus that the source is okay, or no other source can be found, I'll drop my objection.
  • Citation 105: same as #5, 31, 38, 86, 94; I think it's legit
  • Citation 108: I am assuming this is legit, but again, doesn't hurt to ask a second opinion
  • Citation 111: Youtube. Citing a live performance, just concerned if the citation is done right.
  • Citation 116: Metal Sludge; see # 102 for my concerns. It cites something about a tour with Motley Crue and Anthrax, and the Northern Ireland concert incident (which should be documented well enough to cite from a better source)
  • Citation 132: same as #5, 31, 38, et. al. I think it's legit
  • Citation 140: Revolver, cited via the band's website. Is there a better way to do this one?
  • Citation 147: Blogcritics. This absolutely needs to be removed and replaced. It cites the release date of one of the Gigantour concert DVDs. I am sure this information can be obtained from Loudwire, Blabbermouth, or another legit news cite.
  • Citation 153: I think a better source than can be found. Ultimately, my concern hinges on whether this Chad Bowar person is a reputable source.
  • Citation 170: same issue as #153
  • Citation 176: I want to point out that I do not have a problem with this source (Alex Jones/ because of the context and subject of the citation. Brought this up in case anyone else questions it.
  • Citation 231: same issue as #65
  • Citation 239: this source is a blog (, but it's an interview. a second opinion would be welcome here.

Everything else looks okay to me, though if someone else wants to double check, go ahead. Additionally, the bibliography sources look okay, too.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The second note is done, went with the latter variant. As for, I think it can stay since it is not self-published and has an editorial oversight. Metal Sludge is a website dedicated to heavy metal, and has almost identical publishing policy as Metal Rules. The references are actually interviews with Menza and Mustaine for the website, but if anyone else objects, I'll try to find a more suitable solution.--Retrohead (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Blabbermouth wasn't really a concern for me, I just remembered hearing some issue about it a while back. As for the rest, it works for me, if nobody has any further objections. I might check minor style things in the cites, like date format, etc. just to make sure that's all consistent. Did you check to see if there are any double citations that could be merged? I wouldn't think there would be many, if any, but you never know.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrohead asked me to weigh in on some of these sources. My thoughts (only on sources I feel confident in commenting on, if I don't mention a source then I'm not sure):
  • I use Blabbermouth as a reliable source as well, and it is supported by WP:ALBUM/SOURCES (I know this isn't an album article, but if it's acceptable there, I would assume it's acceptable in related articles), as long as it isn't used to support contentious BLP issues.
  • According to the Metal Rules article, they have been cited by the New York Times, and BW&BK. They also appear to have a professional staff. So long as what it's citing isn't too contentious, I'd support using that source.
Ok, I'll drop my objection to that source--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Youtube – It seems to me that if the article uses Youtube to directly support something, such as the band appearing on Letterman and what songs they played, then there should be some sort of news piece out there that talks about them appearing. Basically, it seems like original research to just directly cite a video of their appearances instead of reporting what reliable secondary sources say about their appearances. If a better source than Youtube can be found, I would suggest using it instead.
L1A1 FAL, MrMoustacheMM, all I managed to find are these two references: MSN Entertainment, confirming Megadeth were featured on Letterman in episode 330 (November 18, 1994) and Menza's webiste, stating which songs they played on the show. Are they useful?--Retrohead (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be OK with those. The first source confirms the appearance date, and the second one confirms the song titles. I think Menza's website would qualify as a RS under WP:PRIMARY. L1A1 FAL, your thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Revolver – It would be much better to have the original magazine issue cited instead of Megadeth's website quoting Revolver.
Couldn't find the original Revolver review, but found a reference by The Philippine Star which quotes Revolver.--Retrohead (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Chad Bowar ( – Chad Bowar writes for Loudwire ( Loudwire isn't listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, and all I could find at WP:RSN was an unanswered question. If Loudwire is considered reliable, then I would use his writing too. If not, then I wouldn't. That's up to a larger discussion than just me though. See also this discussion thread.
My cautiousness was more a case of the source than the individual. For all I know, anyone could get on and claim to be an expert reviewer or whatever. But if Bowar's reputation is good, then that's fine by me.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • – I generally consider interviews to be reliable, even if the site normally wouldn't be considered as such, so long as there is no reason to suspect the interview has been altered (or made up). Not sure though how stringent the requirements for Featured Articles are in this type of situation. That being said, if a more reliable source reports on this interview (Blabbermouth is often a good spot for this, depending on how old the interview is), I'd use that source instead. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Goldmine is a print magazine that was started in the 70s. Decade-spanning magazines that are physically printed are just about always going to have the editorial oversight and policy required to be considered an RS, so I approve. Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • – While I wouldn't use it to source a controversial musical stance or to define the band's genre or anything, because I don't believe they are especially an authority on music. But I would think they would be fine for sourcing something like a direct quote from a band member, as it is used here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Voices From The Dark Side – I'm not 100% sure on this one. Although the interview is authorized by Steven Willems, the website doesn't seem like a high quality source. The bad thing is that an interview done by a more reputable journal is hard (or almost impossible) to find. Unfortunately, Dark Angel is an underground band that disbanded in 1992 because of poor album sales, and they obviously haven't got large media coverage.--Retrohead (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • "The group formed in 1983 by guitarist"..... was formed
  • "As of 2014 Megadeth has received"..... needs comma after "2014"
  • "Early days" section would be better titled something like "Formation"
  • "The resulting recording quality was raw and unpolished"..... somewhat confusing....
  • "In February 1987 Megadeth"..... needs comma after "1987"
  • "In January 2000 guitarist"..... needs comma after "2000"
  • "In January 2002 Mustaine"..... needs comma after "2002"
  • "On April 3 Mustaine"..... needs comma after "April 3"
  • "In May 2006 Megadeth"..... needs comma after "2006"
  • "In January 2008 Glen Drover"..... needs comma after "2008"
  • "Mustaine has made numerous inflammatory statements" → "Mustaine has often made inflammatory statements"
  • "For instance, in 1988 MTV deemed"..... needs comma after "1988", and "For instance" isn't really needed

More to come later on. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Those commas are optional; it's up to Retrohead which style to go with, as long as it's consistent within the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the commas were added to retain consistency. I'm sure they were there, but must have been omitted during the copyediting. The other notes are done too.--Retrohead (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


  • "This triggered a riot and fighting"..... doesn't seem very encyclopedic, maybe "This started a fight" or "This started a feud"
Replaced it with "elicited", defined as "evoking or draw out a response from someone in reaction to..."
  • "Controversial and misinterpreted lyrics have caused complications for the band"..... led to conflicts would be better
There were only video bans because of the lyrics, not that the band clashed with someone because of the themes.
  • "Mustaine became a born-again Christian"..... if known, I'd include the specific division of Christianity he took up
Unfortunately no. I assume he took Catholicism, but we haven't got a source for that.
  • "were also influential on the group's guitar style"..... I think "also influenced the group's guitar style" would be better
It was originally written the way you propose, but Curly Turkey re-worded it this way, which I approve. I assume it was done because "influenced [something]" would be repetitive with Led Zeppelin being "also influential on the group's guitar style" or Megadeth being "a direct influence on death metal" and etc.
  • I'd remove "gloomy" from "Megadeth's gloomy lyrics" as it seems POV
Done. This question was previously raised, but forgot to remove it from the article's body (removed it only from the lead back then).
  • "The lyricism centers on nihilistic themes" → "The lyrics involve nihilistic themes"
I think "centers" suggests that nihilistic themes were dominant in the group's lyricism. "Involves", on the other hand, might be interpreted that nihilism was one of the many viewpoints the lyrics present.
  • In Artistry, include what critics have said about their music
Can you be a little more specific about which musical aspect you want additional research? There are the influences (1st para), Megadeth's songwriting routine (2nd para), musical style from the band's formation until the early 2000s and playing skills (3rd para), description by selected musicologists (4th para), and finally, the lyrical themes (5th para).
  • I'd give "Legacy" its own section rather than subsection.
I originally had that idea, but eventually abandoned it because the "Legacy" mentions Megadeth's influence on other bands and genres, which builds on the previous sub-heading.

You're quite close! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't manage to do the majority of the notes, but I think the notifications were adequately explained or tried to be addressed.--Retrohead (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Pendright

The 18 Mahan-class destroyers incorporated notable improvements in design over their predecessors, including advanced propulsion machinery, more torpedo tubes, and superimposed gun shelters. They served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. A few of them were devastated by the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, and others escaped unharmed. In the South Pacific, some of them took part in campaigns to retake the Santa Cruz Islands, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and others. Ultimately, six of them were lost in combat, two were expended in postwar tests, and the remainder were eventually sold or scrapped. Together, the class earned 111 battle stars for their service in the war. This article just passed an A-class review.

In World War II, I served aboard USS Mahan and Cone. My tour of duty took me to the South Pacific and Europe from 1943 to 1946, when I was honorably discharged. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article.

Pendright (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
N.B. This review was only transcluded to the FAC list on 1 July 2014. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 3 July 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) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking. I got rid of a few "spring"s, in one case substituting "April", which isn't stated but is strongly implied by the source. Please check whether you agree with this. WP:SEASON is good guidance that we shouldn't use seasons to denote times, unless the season is important (Autumn harvest etc). Examples like Hawaii are in places where (I believe) there are no seasons to speak of. Captions which aren't sentences don't need periods. I added the propulsion system to the lead. Looking good so far. I am looking forward to properly reading it. --John (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much John. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I agree with the substitution change. I’m on board with spring and summer and your point about captions is well taken.
However, an explanation is necessary about the sentence in the lead that contains your addition. This has been changed several times since my original version and now reads: “The Mahans were the first of many new destroyers to use steam turbines, a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster and more efficient than reciprocating engines.” It should read: “The Mahans were the first destroyers to use a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster, and more efficient than their predecessors.” I should have been more vigilant about the changes. A look at the last paragraph of the article’s Design section and the entire Construction section will help clear this up. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you mention the propulsion system in the lead, if it's important? --John (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
If I understand your question correctly, I did think it important enough to mention in the lead. My original wording (still intact 2 February 2014, passing GA status 15 December 2013) said: “The class introduced a new propulsion system that changed the technology for future wartime destroyers.” Although short, it seemed to meet the requirements of the WK: Manual of Style/Lead section, serving as an introduction and summary of an important aspect of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is better to actually state the type of propulsion in the lead. --John (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree and have done so with that idea in mind. BTW, thank you for all the various fixes. Pendright (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Question Sold or scrapped? --John (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both, according to DANFS - Pendright (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments As a general comment, the article repeatedly refers to 'Auckland, New Zealand' - I think that the country only needs to be specified once. There are also other redundant geographical terms sprinkled through the article. As more specific comments, having so many ship histories is a real challenge for this article, and I'm not sure that they're up to FA standard at present. My comments on this section of the article are:

  • "a Japanese Kamikaze squadron " - were these suicide aircraft or suicide ships? (the term squadron can apply to either). Also, I don't think that Kamikaze air units were organised or deployed as formal squadrons
These were Japanese suicide aircraft. True, the word squadron has many meanings and may not be a good fit here. So, I substituted “a group of Japanese suicide aircraft” instead. In Kamikaze, Raymond Lamont-Brown notes (pp. 63-64) that the Kamikaze was organized into units, and deployed on a “standard best ratio” sortie formulation of five Kamikaze, three to attack and two escort aircraft. Group seizes could vary, depending on circumstances. Pendright (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In April, Cummings was sent to the Indian Ocean where she joined the British Eastern Fleet" - needs context. She was probably one of the ships sent to escort the USS Sarratoga.
Added context - Pendright (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Cummings rejoined the main US fleet" - there was no such formation as the main US fleet as the US Pacific Fleet operated in several major groups (the Fast Carrier Task Force was the main striking force - and I presume is what is being referred to here, but there were also huge amphibious forces)
US 3rd Fleet - fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Drayton assisted in the search for the lost American pilot" - did she participate in the search, or provide assistance to the forces which were engaged in it?
Assisted was my word of choice. The source actually says Drayton took part in the search, which is to say she participated in it. Pendright (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "she escorted a convoy to Christmas Island" - I suspect that the link here should be to the Christmas Island in the Pacific, and not the one in the Indian Ocean
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Drayton escorted Australian troops from Townsville, Australia, to Milne Bay, New Guinea" - ships carrying Australian troops, not Australian troops ;)
Fixed by John 1 June 2014 - Pendright (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Suva in Tahiti" - Suva is in Fiji
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "the offensive to regain the Japanese-held Mariana Islands" - not sure about 're-gain': only Guam was pre-war US territory. The other islands which were invaded had been Japanese territory since the 1920s (and had previously been German, from memory)
You’re correct: regain is not the appropriate word here. I substituted, gain possession of - Pendright (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the ship screened carriers during the air strikes on the Japanese fleet" - which carriers and which fleet? (the escort carriers off Leyte which were engaged by Japanese battleships, or the fast carriers off Luzon which attacked the Japanese carrier force? - again, I presume that you're referring to the fast carrier force)
    • Downes was assigned to TG 38.1.2. at the time, so yes, she was screening the FCTF attacking Ozawa's decoys. I've clarified the text in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "was able to fire six torpedoes by local control at a Japanese battleship, with unknown results" - has the massive body of post-war scholarship on the Guadalcanal campaign really not clarified this? (I'd suggest consulting a better source than DANFS here)
Rohwer and Cressman both mention the sinking of Cushing, but nothing else. Roscoe describes the torpedo incident in some detail, which Is the source used. Pendright (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "took part in landing a Marine division" - that would be the 1st Marine Division, and it seems preferable to specify this
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • the landing by an Australian unit - the unit was the 7th Division (or you could simply refer to 'an Australian force' given that lots of units were assigned to the division
    • Changed to "an Australian force" (but I have no preference). - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "followed by a trip to Japan in August 1945" - what did this involve? This was obviously a pretty dramatic time to be in Japanese waters, and 'trip' seems rather laconic!
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In March, she was part of the Combined Far Eastern Fleet" - see the above comment for Cummings (also, I don't think that there was a 'Combined Far Eastern Fleet' - the 'Eastern Fleet' was a British unit to which forces from various other countries were attached)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "launching strikes against Sabang, Indonesia" - she participated in these strikes, but didn't launch them Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. And thanks too for recognizing the challenge of working with 18 individual ship summaries. Pendright (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Those changes all look good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Pendright left a message on my userpage that he's not sure how to respond. I see some of these have been handled already; anyone want to take a crack at the rest? - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Dank apparently misunderstood my post, I am willing and able to respond and I intend to do so myself. Pendright (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for misunderstanding. What I asked for is nothing special; we help out at FAC all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No problem! Ordinarily, I’d accept all the help I could get. In this case, I think it’s my responsibility to make an effort to address all the questions put to me by the reviewers. If I get stuck, I’ll yell! Sorry for this little episode. Pendright (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks to be an extremely solid article and not bogged down in the (slightly) arcane technical detail which sometimes affects "-class" ship articles! Just a couple of things which don't affect my support:
    • There seems to be an inconsistency in the table heading style. All bold, all grey whatever, but they should probably be the same.
Makes sense - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made some very minor MOS changes here.
Much obliged - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
And, of course, great to see a Wikipedia editor who was actually there! Brigade Piron (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and kind words. Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review - only one photo needs to be addressed:

  • File:USSFlusserDD368.jpg - appears to have been uploaded from Navsource, after any markings that would identify the photo have been cropped off. There's no source there to prove it was a USN photo, so without another source (in a book, perhaps?) we can't use this photo. There are, however, several photos on the Navsource page that still have their "Official Photograph" stamps, and I can upload any of those if you'd like. There's also File:USS Flusser (DD-368)Jun44.png, which has a good source - the camouflage is an interesting pattern.
Please do, that would be very helpful - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You want to use the camouflage one? Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, thanks! Pendright (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All other photos are sourced as USN photos and thus fine to use.
Good news! - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only other suggestion for the article that I'd make is to link some of the major battles - Coral Sea, Tassafaronga, Leyte Gulf, etc. - in the introduction. You might also want to link Operation Crossroads in the lead. I might be too involved between too involved my edits and the help I've given Pendright over the past year and half to offer an unqualified support, but the closing delegate can determine what weight to give my comments. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
For my clarification, are you saying to weave a reference of each of these battles into the lead and then link them at that point? Pendright (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of "All 18 ships saw action in World War II, entirely in the Pacific Theater of Operations, including during the battles of Coral Sea, the Guadalcanal campaign, Leyte Gulf, [and anything else you want to include]. Their participation in major and secondary campaigns included the bombardment of beachheads, amphibious landings, task force screening, convoy and patrol duty, and anti-aircraft and submarine warfare."
And then "Six ships were lost in combat and two were expended in the postwar Operation Crossroads nuclear tests" or something like that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, good! Pendright (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Done - please look it over - Pendright (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Missing bibliographic info for Hodges and Friedman
  • All DANFS links should include that as work
  • Hümmelchen or Hummelchen?
  • Naval Institute Press or US Naval Institute Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject to review, I believe I’ve cleaned up the items in question – except the one for DANFS. The term is unfamiliar to me, so would you be kind enough to explain it further. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've taken care of the work parameter for the DANFS entries. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment leaning support. I tend to review these as a person who is unfamiliar with ships that don't have a Lido Deck, but I can't resist the FAC nominating statement ... thank you for your service ... a few quibbles ...
  • "Rear-Admiral" are you certain on the hyphen? Further ahead, you refer to Rear Admiral Daniel Barbey sans hyphen.
Hyphen removed from Rear Admiral - Pendright (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "including during the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battles of Santa Cruz Islands, Leyte Gulf and Iwo Jima." there seems to be a missing "and" before "the Battles". Which I'm not sure should be capitalized.
Inserted the word and - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "to accommodate No. 3 gun ahead of No. 4." I think you should probably make clearer that No. 3 was moved, not eliminated, that all five guns were retained (I only was certain of this once I consulted the infobox). I take it that this is the subject of "This required relocating one 5"/38 gun to the aft deckhouse." a few lines down? This should probably be consolidated.
Done - If the changes are not what you had in mind, please let me know. Pendright (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The traditional destroyer machinery was replaced with a new generation of land-based machinery" can an example of the replaced machinery be given?
  • "the tripod foremast" suggest "their" replace "the" to keep the focus on the ships and avoid the change of subject.
  • "Displacement increased to 1,500 tons from 1,365 tons." this should probably be merged into the statistics in the next paragraph. I see the 1,500 figure is there already (properly with convert template)
  • Consider cropping the image at the foot of the infobox to remove the caption.
  • "twelve 21-inch torpedoes" I see a link in the infobox to that armament article. I would put one here as well.
  • If most naval historians don't consider them a separate class, then is the word "class" properly applied to them? I should, as a textual note, try to reduce the use of the word "class" in the first sentence by the way.
  • Was the propulsion system based on those used in the passenger liners? If so, then the technology was available to the US Navy, wasn't it? If so, then I would change the phrase to "used in the US Navy" or similar, as well as state that the basis of the technology was the system used in the Gibbs liners.
Ships in class
  • Conyngham "destroyed by sinking" is there a more artful way of putting this?
  • Shaw space needed between 1 and October. I would routinely correct this, but I am doing this offline.
Service history--Cummings
  • "Trincomalee, Ceylon ... Sabang, Indonesia" watch for consistency in whether you refer to places by WWII-era or modern names. For example New Guinea/Papua New Guinea
  • "The ship operated off Okinawa during its invasion" What standard are you using to decide if battles referred to in the text should be piped to?
  • "Hollandia Jayapura" You referred to this place using parentheses for the second name before. Later on, you refer to it just as "Hollandia". Not saying any of this is necessarily wrong, just drawing it to your attention.
  • " Ponape Island" link?
  • "Following repairs at Saipan, she patrolled between Saipan " I would replace the second Saipan with "there".
  • "battle of Midway Island" definitely worth a link.
  • "Decommissioned in December 1946, Conyngham was used in the atomic weapons test at Bikini in 1946" Before decommissioning or in whatever remained of the year after December?
  • "She reported to Pearl Harbor in April" Wasn't she already there?
  • "prisons of war from Japan." presumably prisoners.
  • "Battle of Santa Cruz". By a majority of five to three, you call this the "Battle of Santa Cruz Islands", although with one of the minority, you do not capitalize battle. Please check.
  • "Nagasaki Harbor, Kyushu, Japan, in August 1945" I guess what I'm wondering is if there's anything to be said about Nagasaki's atomic bombing (I realize the ship did not participate in that, but it was plainly there soon after).
  • "Afterward, the ship rolled onto her side and sank" I would strike the word "Afterward," Plainly it didn't happen before.
  • "Doolittle raid on their air strike against Tokyo." Are you sure on the plural?
  • "Munda Island" link?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending the resolution of Wehwalt's comments above. I've also made a few copyedits to the lead that I'd appreciate you checking for factual accuracy! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Imagine, if you will, two aircraft colliding in mid-air and, rather than exploding or spinning out of control, they remain locked together in piggyback fashion and continue to fly by virtue of the still-functioning engines of one plane and the control surfaces of the other –- not to mention one pilot's iron nerves! Well, imagine no longer, it happened over the little town of Brocklesby in south-eastern Australia during World War II. Add to this a tragically ironic aftermath and I think we have some ideal Main Page fodder, assuming it passes muster here. Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 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) 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone.

  • Extraordinary event, with a particularly nasty twist in the tail for poor Fuller.
  • Good background as well as detail of the accident and the fates of the four airmen involved.
  • Referencing looks sound.
  • You might want to think about giving slightly more detail for the external links, such as who hosts them. They read as both rather bare and abrupt as currently phrased. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point, will do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - says everything I'd expect it to say and more. To be sure, it's an extremely interesting story. I'll admit thatI did have to look up what a cowling was, so a wikilink there might have been useful, but I know links and wiki-markup in general are discouraged within quotes. Otherwise: excellent! – Juliancolton | Talk 22:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think sometimes a link in a quote is justified and this may be such a case; if no-one objects I'd be happy to see it there. In any event, thanks for your review and support, Julian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a fairly obscure gold commemorative, the only "two-headed" US coin, and about the preparation for which not much is known, due to lack of surviving records. Still, it's an interesting tale, featuring Farran Zerbe, numismatic promoter, who's mostly remembered positively these days but who was controversial in his timeWehwalt (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox are unsourced
  • There are a number of HarvErrors that need correcting
  • FN7 title needs endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Those things are fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • The article is still listed at GAN. I thought that concurrent GAN and FAC was disallowed?
  • I think, just "President Thomas Jefferson" rather than "American President..."
  • Do we know William Clark's military rank?
  • "a fair to be held in Portland, located along the party's route." Not clear if it's the fair or Portland that's on the route; a little rewording would clarify.
  • There are issues arising from image overcrowding. For example, the Zerbe portrait, supposedly placed in the "Inception" section, appears in my display under the "Design" heading, with the top of the photo extending across the wording. I don't know how this can be fixed other than by reducing the number of images, though possibly some repositioning could sort it out? However, there's not a lot of text to play with.
  • "Numismatic references that discuss the matter..." – we usually identify our sources; any reason for this form?
  • Production: this sentence had me muddled: "The Mint struck 35,000 plus assay pieces in March and June in anticipation of further orders, doing so as the Philadelphia Mint shut down in the summer in that era before air conditioning, but as none were forthcoming, the additional 25,000 were melted". I can follow what happened, but bthe detil about the lack of air-conditioning (or "air cooling" as it was known then) is a bit distractinng and, I think, unnecessary. Recommend delete all between "doing so" and "air conditioning".
  • We are told, later, that 40,003 were melted. The extra 15,000 melts are not identified until the next section, but here I'd say something like: "of which a total of 40,003 were melted".
  • "The 1905 long traded for less..." Wording could do with clarification, e.g. "The 1905 coin traded for many years for less..."

The image overcrowding is likely to be the only significant issue – the others are easily dealt with. Welcome back, Messrs Zerbe and Meeker (he crops up everywhere). Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Meeker appears by author's privilege, I am afraid! I tried for an image of him there but my expert didn't have anything useful. Just as well. I've made the recommended changes and withdrawn the GAN (I thought it had passed). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: The images are better deployed; that of Sacajawea seems only marginally relevant and could be dropped without detriment. Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support. I will think over the image, but that is where the money went, what there was of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd oppose it. Lewis and Clark, Lewis and Clark. The reader will expect to see Lewis first.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I had a feeling you'd say that. ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
As it is what the profits (if any) from the coin went towards, I'd like to keep it. The rest, I've followed your recommendations, except as noted above. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • explorers's or explorers'?
  • Any way to avoid that white space in #Production?
None that I see. Feel free to play with it if you are inclined.
Note deleted, and I've rephrased around the explorers's. The article simply doesn't have a lot of vertical space, and Zerbe needs to be where we talk about him, more or less. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Another great coin article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus)[edit]

Ceoil (talk), Johnbod (talk)

This portrait often appears in popular overviews of 15th century art, but has recieved relatively little scholarship. Painted around 1470, it contains many Early Netherlandish and Gothic characteristics, and sits uneasily between the two. This was a terribly difficult article to write. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

It would I think be wrong to call the article by such a common title, especially one made up by modern curators. In fact we don't have any other articles on paintings called this, so there is as yet no disam page. There's a case for lumping it with Portrait of a Young Woman (a disam page). I don't think she is in fact what a "young girl" normally means, but I suppose Berlin in 1820-odd had no word for teenager. Perhaps we should do a stub on the Durer of the same name, as it happens in the same museum. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave that to you to deceide, but why (Christus, Berlin) rahter than just (Christus)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It is often refered in the literature as the Berlin portrait. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the inline cites are not required in the lead; it would be nice (cleaner & friendlier) to see them moved out
They are MOS compliant, and the quote at least requires one. Typically, reviewers are more likely to complain in the opposite direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I know they're MoS compliant, and I wouldn't oppose over them, I just think it would be more reader-friendly without them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • a "Background" section would be nice---there's a lot of background taken for granted in the prose, not just diretly with regards to painting, but also stuff such as "the patronage of the newly emerging middle class, secularising portraiture, and removing it from the preserve of royalty"
That's all in the FA Early_Netherlandish_painting; I've made the link clearer (lead 1st line). One could add a bit. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume it would be, but it shouldn't be assumed that many have clicked through before reading this article. If it could be summed up in a couple of sentneces, I think it would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The MoS recommends "c." with a period, but doesn't specifically say to avoid "c" without a period ...
Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Waagen associated lettering; Joel Upton supports; Max Friedländer proposed: Who?
Gustav Waagen link moved to first mention, and explained. I don't like saying that people who one would expect from the context to be art historians are in fact just that. Of course if they are not that's a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • a small oil on oak panel painting: "oil-on-oak" should be hyphenated here, but I think it would read better as a small oil panel painting on oak or a small oil painting on oak panel
Done Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • that of Netherlandish portraiture: is there something good to link to here?
Early_Netherlandish_painting#Portraiture , done Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The wall sets her in a recognisable interior: recognizable as an interior, or as a particular interior? What is "recognisable"?
Gone now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is both a major stylistic advance in Christus' oeuvre and that of Netherlandish portraiture, not just that the sitter is no longer set against a flat, neutral background; here she is placed in an airy, three-dimensional, realistic setting.: the "not just" signals to the reader that something like a "but" would follow, but instead we're greeted with a semicolon in a somewhat jarring manner. It also makes the assumption that the reader would know that earlier paintings had "flat, nutral background"s.
Redone. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • her complex stare is reserved, but alert and intelligent: does "alert and intelligent" contrast with "reserved"?
Enough, I think Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Art historian Joel Upton described the lady as resembling "a polished pearl, almost opalescent, lying on a cushion of black velvet.": I'm not a fan of these kinds of quotes in the lead. Is it widely quoted on the literature on the painting, so that it would somehow constitute part of the "overview" of the subject that the lead is supposed to be?
No, but since one is never able to say anything enthusiastic about works thanks to the ever-vigilant PEACOCK patrol, this is best done by quotation (would be in any case) and it is best done at the start. No, the quotation is not well-known, but little is about this work. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, at the very least, the quote should also appear in the body that the lead's supposed to summarize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Northern Renaissance article capitalizes "Northern Renaissance". Is the lowercase a common, accepted alternative?
Caps added. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the most significant successor of the second generation: at first blush, this reads as if he had succeeded the second generation.
Rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • naturalistic enough to be a space within her home: what about being "naturalistic" would classify it as a space in her home?
rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • which Sterling notes is indebted to van Eyck: I assume the influence of van Eyck rather than the man himself?
Yes, is this unclear? Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • oriental eyes: link to Epicanthic fold? and isn't "oriental" kind of old-fashioned?
  • the Gothic ideal: something good to link to here?
Don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • and seems possessesed by an unusual elegance: "unusual" in what sense?
Reworded to make clearer. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • some art historians have described as unnerving.: such as?
  • virtually unprecedented in Italian portrait painting at that time: aren't we in the Low Countries?
Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • rarely found, if at all,: is there some question as to whether it's found at all?
Reworded Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the male chaperon hat, which always has a long tailing cornette, sometimes worn in this way: I was going to link to cornette, but the article says it's "a piece of female headwear". Do you know more about this?
Well yes, as I wrote chaperon. Not sure what the question is. The female wimple cornettes are different. Here the girl wears one of the male scarf-like sort, which is not that unusual on women too. Added a bit. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • almost white skin and almost sculpted bone structure: "almost ... almost"
Now "almost white skin and strong bone structure" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • and even Robert Campin: this is jarring—we shouldn't assume the reader knows what Campin's advances were or what their relation to Christus' work might have been
Cut "even" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • in favour of an elongation of form; emphasised by way the narrow, slight upper body and head are, according to art historian Robert Suckale, "heightened by the V-shaped neckline of the ermine and the cylindrical hat.": I'm having trouble parsing this. Something's wrong; I'm not sure what.
Rewritten (a "the" was missing for a start). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • of the English Talbot family: which English Talbot family?
There is Baron Talbot, but the relevant ones are the 1st & 2nd Earls of Shrewsbury, both linked when mentioned just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Since it has just been introduced, though, wouldn't "an" be more appropriate? Otherwise it sounds like the article's namedropping a family we should be expected to know (like "the Medici"). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Redone Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Archibald Russell establishes: maybe "has established"?
Changed to "established" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Joel Upton supports Waagen's: maybe "Joel Upton's analysis supports" or somesuch? Otherwise the present tense seems weird.
Rewritten. There is another "analysis" just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • it commanded an unusually high price: is the price known?
Yes, but it's not much use by itself - I think it was 40 florins. Stapleton publishes and translates the whole thing, which known from a later copy. Maybe could do a note comparing it with other works priced up in the inventory, but this is fiddly. I think we are working from google preview, which gives the introductory essay but not the list itself. in UK anyway. In fact, with a Van Eyck, it was the most expensive of the 42 Netherlandish paintings recorded. See here; the top price was 100 florins for the Fra Angelico tondo now in Washington, but a small Fra Angelico was only valued at 5 florins. Rewritten a bit; the identity of the 1492 work with that in Berlin is not certain. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe best to shove it into a footnote? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • indicating that their interest: is "they" the Medici?
Yes, rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok in a picture caption, but could go to "showing". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • northern painter: should "northern" be capitalized here?
Usually not I think - like "N/northern Europe". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • also identified the Saint Eligius panel: the Saint Eligius is also by Christus?
Yes, but... Now: "In this way, Waagan also identified Christus' so-called Saint Eligius panel, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (and seen as just a portrait of a goldsmith)" Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • a number of paintings had been attributed to Jan van Eyck: meaning paintings by Christus, or paintings in general?
Added "his", though until this date anything from northern Europe before about 1520 was liable to be attributed to Jan van Eyck (after that it was all Durer). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • hence the confusion with the older painter who often signed his work with similar phraseology if signed with separate names, why would there be confusion?
  • I'll look after this. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Taking this out for the time being. The sources are a bit confusing as to why anyone thought this. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • hidden comment: lots of blanks to be filled in here; Sterling assumes familiarity with the literature: are there still lots of blanks to be filled in, or can this comment be removed?
  • Its removed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • as executed later: or "to have been"?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Frère, Jean Claude. Early Flemish painting. Terrail, 2007: no pages?

File check[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything here, or any of my copyedits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I still think it's odd to have a disambig like (Christus, Berlin) (wouldn't just (Christus) or (Petrus Christus) be better?), but I woudln't hold this up over titling. It's a fine article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Curley for your close reading and very detailed review :) I'm ok with moving to (Christus). Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of sources
  • One three-author work uses et al in short cites, while the other lists all three - be consistent
  • FN18: author name doesn't match that given in Sources
  • Missing bibliographic info for Sterling
  • Nash is a book and should have its title italicized
  • Upton: check location. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikki; all resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
VE/TK cmts
  • I'd not ever read this article until tonight - very nice! And interesting to read that it's dated based on the style of the hennin. I've made a few very small tweaks; no prob to revert if not okay. One quibble is this sentence (and I might try to fix myself if I get the time): "The subject no longer sits against a flat, neutral background but is placed in an airy, three-dimensional and realistic setting" >> per the inline I left, sounds like she was sitting against a wall but now isn't. Also, is this Christus portrait the first to use such a convention? In other the words does "The subject" refer specifically to this girl or to Christus' innovations in general?
  • Pleased to support. Nicely done, as usual - a gem. Victoria (tk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Aphthous stomatitis[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Nick (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am an IP and I asked someone on the Help IRC to nominate this article for me because I cannot create pages. I will be responding to the improvements, but from different IPs time to time.-- Matthew Ferguson. (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This page was not transcluded on WP:FAC. I have done so now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Crisco. I am just starting a new job so there may be a few days delay before I answer any comments, but I am committed to bringing the article to a higher standard. Lack of standardization in the references format will probably be an issue so I will preempt this and fix it in due course. (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  1. Why so many citations in the lead? See WP:LEADCITE
  2. Fixed number of columns is deprecated in {{reflist}} in favour of column width
  3. {{page needed}} tag needs addressing
  4. Formatting of authors is currently quite inconsistent - pick a style and stick to it
  5. Use title caps for journals
  6. Use a consistent date format
  7. FN28: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, many thanks for start of review. I will address these points over the next few days. (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. I can remove some of these citations if needed, although some sources only occur in the lead and not in the body of the article
  2. I thought so, however I was being reverted. I will put it back.
  3. Epeefleche has kindly offered to find the page number in due course. If not the source can safely be removed as the newspaper source will still support all the content in that section.
  4. I am aware and in process of making them consistent. All authors now follow format Lastname Firstnameinitial.
  5. OK, will do.
  6. I am aware and in process of making them consistent
  7. Sorry, what is FN28 format?
    The current footnote 28, Liu C, Tseng A, Yang S (2004)., is missing part of its title, and the Google Books link should be truncated after pg=PA533. The current footnote 29, previously footnote 28, should have the publication title italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, just to be 100% clear, title caps is as follows: "British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery", correct? (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Re FN28 and 29, all done. (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the correct capitalization. Also, per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, please don't use {{done}} and similar templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All these points are done now. ty for pointers. (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Also I can add that I have electronic copies of many of the references used if anyone wants copies to check verifiability or whatever. (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • General comment. I would urge that all refs in the lede that are not to what is considered to be contentious text (probably all) be deleted, as long as corresponding text and refs appear in the body. Also, I would urge that unless there is a good reason, the refs that are mid-sentence be moved to the ends of their respective sentences. Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cal Ripken, Jr.[edit]

Nominator(s): Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Cal Ripken, Jr., Hall of Fame baseball player for the Baltimore Orioles. No major issues came up in the last FA review, so I am hoping there is enough input this time to get it to featured status. If you find problems with it, please check back periodically to see how I have corrected them. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No major issues came up!?! Two editors opposed the article for failing the well-researched criteria because the majority of the biographical information in the article is based on a single book written before the subject's career had even ended. No featured article should have ninety-two of its first ninety-six citations coming from a single source. No work has been done to address this issue since the last nomination; in fact it looks like no work has been done by the nominator at all since that nomination. I am confused as to why the nominator appears to be attempting to engage in some form of subterfuge. Indrian (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem in the use of the book as the main source for the first part of his career. It's a reliable source, and sums that part of his career up fine. There isn't any more recent book on him. If that's your only reason for opposing than I have to question it. The other oppose in the FAC does hit on the same points I saw on a skim, and those concerns still need to be addressed though. Wizardman 02:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Cal Ripken wrote an autobiography (still before the end of his career, unfortunately) that is not referenced here. He was one of the four subject's of George Will's best-selling and well regarded Men at Work, which is not referenced here. He is one of the players featured in the book Baltimore Orioles: Where Have You Gone? Cal Ripken Jr., Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer, and Other Orioles Greats discussing the post-playing careers of prominent Orioles, which is not referenced here. There is a book specifically covering his MVP and World Championship season called Oriole Magic: The O's of 1983 (he wrote the forward) that is not referenced here. There is an oral history called From 33rd Street to Camden Yards : An Oral History of the Baltimore Orioles that includes Ripken and is not referenced here. I am not a scholar of Ripken or the Orioles and have only read some of these books myself, so it could be that not all of them contain useful information, but the point is there are other monographs that discuss aspects of his career, and I am not even getting into newspaper and magazine profiles that have undoubtedly appeared over the years as well. By viewing the majority of Ripken's career through the lens of a single author, this article risks inheriting any biases of said author by not surveying a larger swath of the relevant literature, which is not limited to the narrow realm of "full-length biographies of Cal Ripken, Jr." Unless the nominator can demonstrate that these other sources precisely duplicate all of the relevant information on his career found in the single book he has chosen to cite to, then he cannot claim to have satisfied the well-researched criteria of FAC. Indrian (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to referencing more sources for the early part of Ripken's career; in fact, I would have, if that had been in the Featured Article criteria. But, it is not. In fact, if you take a look at Rogers Hornsby and J. R. Richard (related precedents), you will notice that they mainly use a single source for their careers. Hornsby relies heavily on the same book, and Richard relies heavily on Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, both statistical sites. You do bring up the valid point that, by using the Rosenfeld book so heavily, I may have missed aspects of his career. That is true... in a way. However, this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. This article should just cover the main points of his career; it can't cover every single-game performance or minor detail relating to Ripken . Books may differ in specifics of Ripken's career, but all biographies will cover all the general information an encyclopedia article requires. There is nothing notable enough for an encyclopedia article that would not be found in a biography, including Rosenfeld's. And if there were anything important not mentioned in the Rosenfeld book, I would have found it in at least one of the articles I looked at while writing this article.
In addition, I don't have access to many of the books you list, except the autobiography, which I avoided because it is a primary source that should be assumed to be biased towards Ripken. (Also, Baltimore Orioles: Where Have You Gone? Cal Ripken Jr., Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer, and Other Orioles Greats would not have helped with the pre-1995 part of Ripken's career, which is what you are concerned about.) However, in order to address your concerns, I did manage to find SABR bio and Britannica bio. The Britannica bio contributed nothing new from Ripken's pre-1995 career, and the SABR article contained only about two facts not mentioned by Rosenfeld which were relevant enough for the article (Drago and the ASGMVP-HR Derby significance, both of which I have added). If you can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that other sources contain information about Ripken's early life which should be mentioned, I will add it. But, based on Richard, Hornsby, and the FA criteria, this article cites enough sources about his early life to be promoted. In addition, correct me if wrong, but you were the only editor to raise this as a concern in the last nomination. User:Neutralhomer supported it (based on references, by the way), and User:maclean just wanted some articles and books to be mentioned, which I did. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I also made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball for editors who are knowledgable about Ripken to check and see if anything important is not mentioned in the early part of the article. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that we need to be careful about using autobiographies because of the potential for bias, but they can be helpful for early life information and providing a player's own viewpoints on events. Regarding the Hornsby article, it should be noted that it has more than one book source, unlike this one; the major biography of him is heavily used, but there is more sourcing diversity there. Richard doesn't have a biography that I can find, but there are several books and articles that at least show that multiple perspectives were considered. You'd be amazed what any given source can leave out. I just finished substantial work on a broad baseball article, and I'm glad that I had multiple major books on the subject on hand because each one offered something that proved valuable. The book you are using is a great source, but Indrian is right in saying that we need more evidence that the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" per FA criterion 1c. Even a simple Google Books search of the books listed above should allow you to reduce the massive weight being placed on the one book, and perhaps discover new material that would be worthwhile to include. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Indrian and Giants2008 re criterion 1c. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a Google Books search and posted all the relevant information I could find. If this article still needs additional sourcing to reach featured status, tell me, and I will see if I can find any newspaper articles too. I can get Ripken's autobiography, but that would probably take a week because I would have to put it on hold at the library. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not yet gotten the autobiography, but I did search archives of the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times for more information about Ripken, getting the best results with the New York Times. Would the editors that have commented so far mind informing me whether this is enough to bring this article to featured status, or whether there is still more I need to do? I don't want this review to die like the last one did because of inactivity. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
My view is formed on the basis of reading the discussion - i know nothing about the sport of the literature. If there are, as Indrian suggests, several books that are directly relevant, then that literature should be being surveyed, and a bunch of newspaper articles, useful though they may be, are not really a substitute for checking out at least some of those books. Also, of all the books, i would suggest the autobiography is the least useful - reliability is enhanced by finding other people writing about the person, not by them writing about themselves. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I already surveyed other books directly relevant to Ripken; this article now cites three additional ones. I looked at others as well but failed to find anything in them not already covered in this article. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I did get the autobiography, but there did not seem to be anything relevant about Cal's early life not already covered by this article. However, this article is now based on four books (not counting ones I looked at but found no new information in), and I have supplemented the books with newspaper articles. I think this meets the recommendations of the users that have commented so far. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e was the J-Pop boom of the 19th century. Of course, it was many other things before the West got around to "discovering" it, as you'll see when you read through this artistic genre's 200+ years of history. Thanks in advance to the image reviewer, as there are about sixty images to go through—and I'm wide open to suggestions for replacement or addition. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't need quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
  • FN42, 50, 70, 76, etc: page formatting - check usage of "p." vs "pp."
  • Tuttle Publishing or just Tuttle?
    • Actually, it appears it was Charles E. Tuttle Company until 1996. Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments by Johnbod
  • Generally excellent, and very welcome. I wish say Indian art had as many strong articles as Japanese. I've commented on it at various times over the years, and during Curly's epic expansion. A few cavils:
  • "the nativist Yamato-e tradition, which focused on Japanese themes painted in soft colours and contours" - the bit I've italicized raised the eyebrows. I don't think it's a very useful way to distinguish Yamato-e from Chinese styles, and often just not true. The colours of very old works have often faded, but that is a different matter. Soft colours and blurred contours are arguably just as characteristic of the Chinese styles, when they use colour at all.
    • Hmmm..."soft colours and contours" wasn't really meant as a contrast with the Chinese styles—rather simply as characteristics of the Yamato-e style—but I guess it comes across that way the way I wrote it. And I guess I failed completely in conveying the diversity of Chinese-inspired styles. Let me think of a rewording. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you think "Chinese-inspired ones of a variety of styles" is sufficient? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That's ok, but I really can't see "soft colours and contours" as a useful characterizion of Yamato-e. It often shows selective colouring and views obscured by the mist or revealed by cut-away, but "soft" doesn't work for me. There are often strong colour highlights that Chinese artists would think inharmonious. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I botched summarizing the source: "gorgeous coloring and softness of contour". Would "rich" or "lavish colours" and "soft contours" work? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Makes more sense, though personally I'm still dubious about "soft contours". Just quote it? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Reading around (such as here), it looks like both styles went through more evolution than can really be neatly summed up here. How about: "the nativist Yamato-e tradition, focusing on Japanese themes, best known by the works of the Tosa school; and Chinese-inspired kara-e in a variety of styles, such as the monochromatic ink wash painting of Sesshū Tōyō and his disciples"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • Fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Until the 16th century, the lives of the common people had not been subject to the painters, and even when they were included,..." and the picture caption "is one of the earliest Japanese paintings to feature the lives of the common people.". In the first the phrasing is odd - was it meant to be "the lives of the common people had not been a subject for painters" which is better, though "a main subject" would be better, as works like the 12th-century Shigisan-engi are famous precisely for showing "the lives of the common people", but serving a Buddhist narrative story. Compared to other major traditions, Japanese painting was rather strong on "the lives of the common people" well before this date, but not as a subject in itself. This distinction should be made.
  • "their improved lot allowed for leisure that many sought in the pleasure districts—in particular Yoshiwara" - needs locating in Edo, which will clarify it is a place not a person.
  • "Moronobu was the first of the book illustrators to achieve such prominence that, by 1672, he could sign his name to his work" - bit oddly phrased. Presumably he did so because it brought marketing advantage, but nothing was stopping any artist from doing so, I'd imagine.
    • I'll have to grab the book from the library, but I think it had something to do with Moronobu's superiors granting him the right to sign his work. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok, that would make sense in European terms under the guild system too. Maybe fill it out a bit to avoid the question. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Nope, I was wrong—it reads: "In 1672, with the publication of The Samurai Hundred-poem Collection (Buke hyakunin isshu), he became the first Edo illustrator to achieve such prominence as to be able to sign his own work." I've reworded. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Early ukiyo-e masters" mini-gallery is a mix of paintings & prints. Clarify which is which.
  • I rephrased re Sharaku's identity [8].
    • One thing about this: "artist who worked under the name" could be applied to pretty much every one of the artists, as using an art name was standard, and it was common for artists to change their art names—Hokusai used about a hundred different art names. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, and it would be worth mentioning that before this point. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • More later. I can see my main issue is going to be one I think I've raised before - the paucity of information on the social and economic context for the buyers especially. How expensive were they? "prices affordable to prosperous townspeople" are mentioned, but that's pretty vague. How were they collected and displayed? Were they hung up on walls, or kept in albums, or both? Did enthusiasts have huge collections? Was there a critical literature while the tradition existed? Did other artists or critics look down on them? Was there a 2nd-hand trade? Were there collector's marks? Did you make a lot of money as an artist? Were the more erotic subjects regarded as suitable for public/mixed-gender display? Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit on this last one, and am hunting down some more. As for the "critical literature", that's a definite no—there was almost no literature at all, and what there was came late—the most significant being the Ukiyo-e Ruikō collection of artist histories, which first appeared in 1790 and was never printed under the modern era, copied by hand and modified extensively copy to copy. It has never be translated into English, but it gets mentioned here and there. I'll find a good source on it and add something. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think I've dealt with the "critical literature", pricing, and acceptability of shunga issues. I'm still hunting down collecting habits and incomes; I've found a source that emphasizes the changing economic conditions throughout the era had an effect on the ways ukiyo-e were produced, but it's not very specific, so I'm going to keep hunting for more on that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I see what you mean. On a quick prowl through JSTOR there is a ton on early Western collectors, but little on Japanese ones. Can you see "Hokusai's Illustrations for the "100 Poems"", Roger Keyes and Hokusai, Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, Vol. 10, The Art Institute of Chicago Centennial Lectures (1983), pp. 310-329, Published by: The Art Institute of Chicago, Article DOI: 10.2307/4104343, Article Stable URL: First few pages cover the economic crisis of the 1830s which I've read about elsewhere, and probably deserves mention. Also: "The Prints of Isoda Koryūsai: Floating World Culture and Its Consumers in Eighteenth-Century Japan" by Allen Hockley, Review by: Christine M. E. Guth, Artibus Asiae, Vol. 64, No. 1 (2004), pp. 125-127, Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers, Article Stable URL: - suggests that would be a good book on this. supposedly there is "a revolution in ukiyo-e studies" going on (or was in 2004), bringing this stuff more to the fore. Also: "The Commercial and Cultural Climate of Japanese Printmaking" by Amy Reigle Newland, Review by: Lawrence E. Marceau, Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 2006), pp. 494-498, Published by: The Society for Japanese Studies, Article Stable URL: - conference papers. This suggests the key books then were Chibbett 1997 The history of Japanese printing and book illustration (Kodansha) and Hillier 1987 "The Art of the Japanese book" (Sotheby's). I can supply PDF's if needed. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually added Hockley's book just today. I don't currently have JSTOR access---I'd love to get any of those PDFs. There definitely seems to be a lot more activity in ukiyo-e scholarship in the last decade, but I haven't come across anything summing it up and contextualizing it. Most of it seems too domain-specific for the general ukiyo-e article (like, say, a book analyzing Harunobu's mitate-e that I was browsing through at the library the other day---and lots of stuff on shunga, shunga, shunga). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do believe I've showed you WP:RX before, right? And yes, a TFA on shunga would be... interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I've actually made quite a bit if use of it. The problem sometimes is not knowing there's something you need if you can't browse through the content. Hopefully I'll be one of those who's granted a JSTOR account so I can browse more freely. A shunga article would be something I could handle (a shelffull of sources at the library), but I do must of my editing where that would be awkward...
I've found an interesting book, but a couple of key pages are inaccessible. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The more I read about pricing, the more I feel like I want to rip out what I've already added. I'm reading Ukiyo-e by Jun'ichi Ôkubo (2008) at the moment, and he has a short section that looks at prices. It appears that "typical" prices varied quite widely, and it doesn't appear the supposedly "typical" 20 mon of the early 19th centruy was really all that typical. The records are so scanty, it seems, that analyzing them seems to be as much speculation as anything. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I think I've dealt with most of your concerns in one way or another. I guess the biggest gap is in how they were collected, and how much artists made. For incomes, I've come across a few tidbits about Hokusai (always broke), Hiroshige (always struggled, but made more than he would've as a firefighter), and Kunichika (apparently made 100 sen for a particular triptych in the 1870s), but I'm turning up blanks for anything general enough to work into the article ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just ran across a book—Ukiyo-e Shuppan-ron by Ôkubo Jun'ichi—that deals with the production and comerical aspects of ukiyo-e, and it was published in 2013. It looks like it spends a lot of time examing in detail what little hard evidence there is, and still looks like it doesn't have hard answers to a lot of these questions, but I've found a couple of things in it that could be used to refine what's in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for acting promptly. I won't be able to work through these, and check the rest of the article, until the w/e I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More from Johnbod

  • "such printing was reserved for Buddhist seals and images..." seals? maybe. But also texts and prayers, no?
  • " The landscape genre has come to define ukiyo-e for Western audiences,..." a bit overstated imo. The most famous single series are landscapes, but portraits are well enough known too, I'd have thought.
    • Maybe "define" is too strong, but it is true that many can name no more than Hokusai and Hiroshige. I read an Amazon review recently of someone who gave a one-star review to a book on ukiyo-e history because he was disappointed that the landscapes were relegated to the back of the book (!). Even amongst the foreigners I run into in Japan, it's common for them to define "ukiyo-e" as "Japanese landscape prints"---this is despite the porminent Sharakus that constantly confront them on billboards---many of them aren't aware the Shakarus are also ukiyo-e. I have to admit, once upon a time I was one of those people ... do you think "The landscape genre has come to dominate Western perspecitves of ukiyo-e" is still too strong? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that would be fair to say. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm interested in the development of the (very un-Chinese I think) "large-headed" close-up approach to portaiture, its similarities to Western portraits in terms of pure scale, but its difference in terms of the strong gender contrast: highly expressive, contorted male faces, but female faces with any expression having to be read into an essentially blank composure, and women often seen from behind. Anything in the sources?
    • It sure sounds like something that would have been written about, but Google's not being my friend today ... I'll keep looking. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Style section should mention the continuation of yamato-e traditions of composition and viewpoints - non-centralized compositions, oblique, high, views of the scene, elements cut-off by the frame, things seen in secondary spaces at the back of the composition, that sort of thing. That was a large part of what excited the West.
  • "the woodcarvers, who prepared the woodblocks for printing.... " You might mention/link to Formschneider, the Western equivalent.
  • Caption: "A colour print of a group of well-dressed Japanese women making prints|A mid-19th-century print by Kunisada depicting the woodblock printing process. An ..." "alt" lost?

That's it - thanks for the work since the first part of the review. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Excellent work...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - you might add Les Nabis as another group of Post Impressionists influenced by Ukiyo-e; although you do mention Bonnard and Vuillard...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded it to mention they were members of the group. Thanks! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Night of January 16th[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a theatrical courtroom drama that allows audience participation in the outcome. It was the first commercial success for a young writer, Ayn Rand, and the last big hit for an aging producer, Al Woods. Actress Doris Nolan, then just a teenager, made her Broadway debut in this play; her veteran castmate Edmund Breese died just after the end of the run. Since achieving GA status in February, the article has been expanded with more content and more sources. I have judged it worthy to be my first FAC nomination, and I hope a jury of my peers will reach consensus in its favor. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:NightOfJanuary16th.JPG needs a more expansive FUR
  • File:E.E._Clive_in_The_Little_Princess.jpg: link to support licensing is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to review these. I've updated the FUR for the cover image, and replaced the dead link on the Clive image with an archive link. Let me know if you see anything else I should fix. --RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Subway Sadie[edit]

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a lost film from 1926 about a subway guard and a fur salesgirl. I've exhausted all usable sources to create a comprehensive article and the prose has been buffed up since the GA nomination passed. It's not the longest article, but I think it meets the criteria regardless. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review (complete)
  • File:Subway Sadie poster.jpg - I'd say there's a 99% chance that this is PD (most studios didn't start regularly putting copyright notices on their posters until the 1930s). Do you have access to a higher resolution scan for us to check?
  • Here's a slightly higher one. All text seems legible, doesn't look like there's a copyright notice. I'm not a copyright wizard; would this make it PD?
  • The copyright text is usually very small, so I would say not yet. We'd have to hunt down if there were any renewals 28 years after publication. My internet is fritzing out on me, so I can't check it right now. We hope is usually pretty good with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 and Taylor Trescott--didn't find a larger one. Sadie was renewed; I agree that the poster probably has no copyright marks on it, but how about a compromise--changing this for a nice, big lobby card with no copyright marks? If you guys give me a few minutes, I think I can also get some more photos of the folks in the film and a photo of a theater marquee showing the film through Lantern. We hope (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The lobby card looks free. We should be using that then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Give me a minute to get it to Commons.:) We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Great. I'm uploading a higher resolution of the MacKaill image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK--File:Subway Sadie lobby card 1926.jpg here it is. Did either of you see these photos in Motion Picture News for 1926? We hope (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No, I've been limiting myself to images used in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
  • Here is an alternate one. I reuploaded it using this source because the blue tint was unsightly and it was a larger resolution.
  • Better, but this has a copyright tag (title page). Was this renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK-Stars of the Photoplay was not renewed. I checked books and periodicals for 1951 and 1952. The only renewals for Photoplay were in 1951-for a couple of stories in back issues. We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That means we're nice and safe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Subway Sadie promo still.png - Why, exactly, is this PD? Was there no copyright notice on the back? How can you confirm that when the back wasn't included in the ebay ad? Yes, most promotional stills were not copyrighted, but Wikipedia has required actual proof (i.e. the backs) for several years now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Swapped out for a new still which I can confirm is PD.
  • File:Subway Sadie film still Picture-Play.png needs categories, and the date should be fixed (speaking of that, make sure all of the dates are the correct ones for your other files). For display on Wikipedia, a jpg format is best (the software sharpens the thumbnails, making them clearer), but I can do that myself if you are pressed for time. But a bigger problem: there is a clear copyright notice on the bottom of the table of contents (here). Do you have proof this wasn't renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this Crisco. I'm a bit hurried for time, but I think I addressed these properly. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Prose comments
Al Rockett - Per WP:REDLINK, biographies should generally not be redlinked
Couldn't find a redlink for Rockett. There was one for Hugh Bennett and I took it out. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Randall portraying Brown - who's Brown?
IDK. The sources with a plot don't give the names of any of the other characters. Want me to nuke it? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
running for 70 minutes. - at how many FPS? If I remember correctly, silent films could be shown at several speeds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
With 35mm film, 1 minute is usually projected with 90 feet being one minute. Changed to "around 70 minutes". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Good work on another lost film article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN8: title formatting, page number?
  • FN2, 20: article title? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the help. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: For such a short article, the prose had several grammar mistakes and redundant phrases. I'd like to run through and copyedit the article tomorrow, and perhaps leave some nitpicks for you to fix on your own. ceranthor 15:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It is appreciated. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor:

  • The silent film began production shortly after May 1926. - Why "after May"? Does that just mean June?
You are right. I originally did not have the source that specified it started May 3. Changed.
  • I noticed you forgot to mention a fact mentioned here, that after Sadie decides to marry him, "Herb reveals that his father is president of the subway company".
Image captions
  • A scene from the film, featuring Mulhall and Mackaill. Their successful pairing in Subway Sadie led to them appearing in many further films. - I think several other films would be better than "many further", unless there are other films not listed in the article.
Release and reception
  • The Morning Telegraph' review - Unfamiliar with this punctuation... could you explain?
It's just a mistake. Fixed
  • The Morning Telegraph' review said that Subway Sadie would "delight the majority of straphangers" and that "it is what the boys call excellent box-office". - this sentence needs a citation?
  • The New York American review was similarly positive, describing it as "a light but charming comedy". - Citation?
Those two are both cited to ref #20
  • In June 1927, a Southeast Missourian journalist wrote that the film had since become "very successful".[23] - Any explanation of what this vague statement means?
It's supposed to imply the film was considered a success after its release. I could take it out it you want.
Since the source is so vague, it seems fine as is. Don't worry about it.

In general, it's fairly well-written, but there's a lot of passive voice. ceranthor 21:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and copyedits. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Taylor. I've made a list of most of the sentences with passive voice here. For such a short article, I feel like we can collaborate to get rid of some of the passive voice in this article. Feel free to run your ideas by me, and I'll run through the article and try to help, too. ceranthor 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: I took a stab at eliminating some of the passive voice. How'd I do? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm satisfied! :) ceranthor 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - Prose now looks good, and references seem to check out. ceranthor 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - reading through now. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a silent film shot in black-and-white - this line sorta just sits there and doesn't segue onto the previous...but I can't think of an alternative place to put it. sentence is a bit short and abrupt.

The rest of it reads fine - it appears comprehensive...will read again and muse on this line..otherwise on track for passing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I merged that line with the Edeson one. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Aah, well done. I was staring at it for a bit and unsure, but that works fine...ergo, support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is BMFD?
  • Why are you limiting many images to such a small size?
  • File:BriarcliffTrophy.tif, File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg: when/where were these first published?
  • File:BriarcliffManorPolice.jpg, File:HillsideBriarcliff.jpg: is there a more specific licensing tag?
  • File:SaturdayNightLiveBriarcliff.png needs a stronger FUR
  • File:BriarcliffSealOld.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, you raise all good points. I talk about the BMFD earlier, so I didn't think it needed to be linked or explained. Many of the images are small to not mis-align section headings, although some could be bigger. The Briarcliff Trophy and Walter Law images date to 1908 and 1910. The trophy picture was in a Briarcliff Outlook publication; I'll try to find the exact one. The Law photo was dated to 1910 and I know it's in a 1939 publication, and probably is in earlier ones. I'll look for it. The SNL image I think qualifies well for identification and critical commentary, how would you change its rationale? The seal was vectorized from a scan of an introductory page (not numbered) of Briarcliff's 1977 history. I'll detail that. Again, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I linked the BMFD and made one image bigger. Most images are at the default size, all others are either a bit smaller to (as mentioned above) not hit into the next section, or because they're portrait instead of landscape. The Law photo in addition to the Police and Hillside images I scanned directly from the originals, located at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society (BMSHS). The BMSHS only found a permanent home three years ago, and therefore any images people have donated to them are without records as to date taken/photographer/any usage in publications. So I cannot have a more specific license or information.--ɱ (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You should adjust the size of portrait images using the "upright" parameter, as described at WP:IMGSIZE. For the SNL image, the current listed "purpose of use" is "The image shows a scene of Saturday Night Live filmed in Briarcliff Manor" - this is a description of what the image actually is, not an explanation of why it is needed in the article or how it aids understanding. It is also missing an explicit identification of the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I substituted the 'upright' bit for all the portrait images, except for the ones in the 'notable people' section because it looks too prominent and people might think it gives undue weight to them. I also changed the FUR for the SNL image. Is that up to par?--ɱ (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I updated the File:BriarcliffTrophy.tif, and I changed the license on File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg. Does this all suffice?--ɱ (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Crisco, care to weigh in? I'm still not sure the image is needed to "to illustrate that Briarcliff Manor was the setting for this comedy skit".
By the way, image issues aside, I would encourage you to check your reference formatting before someone comes through to do a source review - I spotted several inconsistencies on only a quick glance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it over again now. Could've sworn I got everything, but with this many refs it's hard to be sure... Also, the fact that this small village was in the very first episode of SNL is something that many people doubted until I showed them a clip of the episode; that's why I thought it was important to have the image: verification and illustration of that.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I fixed some references; please tell me if there's anything else that stands out. Also, you should perhaps fix the link to Crisco1492's page, you forgot to add the "User:" bit. Thanks for your comments so far.--ɱ (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Argh, you're right, thanks. I don't intend to do a full source review right at this moment, but a few quick points: book refs almost always need page numbers, unless you're actually citing the whole book, and some of them are missing; ditto periodicals without weblinks. More broadly, similar types of sources should generally look the same: for example, we see that the newspaper in FN19 includes a publisher while the newspaper in FN61 doesn't, so pick one option and apply it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

() Okay. Book numbers are often problematic with history and place articles because sources may have information on introductory pages that aren't numbered, and ebook page numbers often don't match up with print ones. As well, a few books I used are so short that they don't have page numbers. Some books, like The Changing Landscape I cite so many times that it would be best for one to just use the book's TOC or index, rather than making this long article longer with a 'notes' section for individual pages, which would be mostly for this one book anyway. And some paragraphs, like that on 'higher education', I wrote entirely using that book as a source, although I may have used four or five different pages. It's neater and easier to just cite the book for that paragraph than have each portion cited, even though it's all from the same source. For those reasons, I think it's really best to just leave it as the status quo.

With regard to periodicals without weblinks - many are print articles that haven't yet been digitized. The village historical society has archives of news articles that aren't on the Web but still easily count as verifiable. With regard to consistency, I tried to be consistent with formatting and dates, but when it comes to the amount of information, it just varies too much. Some sources have no date, some have no URL, some have no publisher, some have no author, etc.--ɱ (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I added page numbers for the largest source of this article, the above-mentioned Changing Landscape. My copies of the 1939 and 1952 histories have no page numbers, although the BMSHS ones might; I'll look into that, as well as finding if the 1977 history has them.--ɱ (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Another update - I found that the 1939 history has no pagination. The 1952 and 1977 ones do, and I added the page numbers of the 1977 book, and I'll do the same for the 1952 book shortly.--ɱ (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. I'm a bit uneasy about this source - is it possible to replace it? Also, since Lulu is a self-publishing company, what makes that book a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria: Well, reliable sources also depend on what is being cited. If it's something controversial, you want the top authority on the matter; while if it's a basic fact, you can use a wider variety of sources. I use the lawyer site to reference that the village is "just northwest of central Westchester County". That likely doesn't need a source, but since I wrote this article with everything being attributed to sources, I felt a need to find one. The lawyer site is the only one that specifically mentions Briarcliff's geographic location withing the county, so there it is. If you'd rather we remove it and call it basic knowledge not needing a citation, that's okay.
The book published by Lulu was written by Patricia Baldwin Andrews and her grandson Robert P. Oehrig. Andrews is the granddaughter of William Woodward Baldwin, the subject of the publication. And the two authors wrote the book as a compilation of Baldwin's diaries, writings and photos. In fact, the two things that I cite with that reference were taken from Baldwin's writings himself (dating to the first decade of the 20th century), not those of Andrews of Oehrig, just reprinted in their publication. I'd say all of that justifies the information I cite to it- information about Baldwin himself, and about the first car, which Baldwin wrote about, and wrote about driving in it.--ɱ (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

1987 Giro d'Italia[edit]

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've put in some considerable labor into the article to bring it from what it was ([9]). I recently got the 1988 Giro d'Italia promoted to FA status and have made the changes and additions requested to that article to this one (expanded the route and stages sections, added an aftermath section, and a little more on pre race favorites). I also did a copy edit of the race overview, which I believe got most of the prose errors out of the way. I will respond back to any comments very quickly. Thanks!

Also, I have perused the internet databases in search of information on doping controls and cases at the 1987 giro and have not found anything; so that is why there is nothing about doping in the article. I haven't found a source that claims there weren't doping cases either...

Image review

  • File:Sanremo Casino.jpg - all OK
  • File:Terminillo.JPG - all OK
  • File:Moreno Argentin.jpg - Flickr, reviewed - looks OK
  • File:San Marino 010.jpg - all OK
  • File:Robert MILLAR (cropped).jpg - all OK
  • File:Passo Pordoi 2007.jpg - all OK
  • File:1987 Stephen Roche Giro TT.jpg - Flickr, reviewed - looks OK

Images sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Canis Major[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to work up bigger constellations without the prose coming across as too listy - this article came together quite well I thought. Home of the brightest star in the sky and a bunch of interesting things. Have a read, tell me what I can fix and enjoy (hopefully) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

First, the image review. File:Canis Major IAU.svg comes from a site with an appropiate license, but it still contains a pair of logos at the bottom right. Their copyright section clearly said that their logo is not freely licensed, and so it must be removed from the image (watermarks are usually removed anyway). Besides, it may be better if the "source" was not just a raw link that simply reads "[1]". File:CMa setting.jpg has a "summary" section that repeats the content of the description, remove it. And what about removing the lower portion of the photo, so that we see just the sky and not the portion of the plane's window? (there's also the plane wing, but I don't think we can do anything about that). File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Canis Major, Lepus, Columba Noachi & Cela Sculptoris.jpg is a featured image, and I don't see any problem with it. File:CanisMajorCC.jpg comes from a site with a copyright notice, but the author uses the same name both there and in Commons. Perhaps you should send a mail to the author (in his page) to ask him to confirm that the user in Commons is also him, and that he's aware that he's re-licensing the photos by uploading them here. File:Stars fleeing a cosmic crash.jpg seems fine --Cambalachero (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed duplicate material. I would think leaving some reference point is good, depends what one sees as the interesting part of the image. If you crop it so it is just sky, then it is just a blurry picture of the constellation. Actually the more i think about it, it really doesn't add to the article except in an amusing and possibly noncyclopedic manner, so I will remove it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Would the logo not be part of attribution? This is the copyright notice on the original site, and this is (presumably) the version they are happy with being reproduced, given it is on the website....all 88 constellations have this image.....will redo the source source rewritten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comments from Jim Usual high quality, Cas, just a couple of minor points you might take a look at Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • KAK.SI.DI, BAN, MULAPIN— Why are the Babylonian words fully capped? I can hardly bring myself to write this, but is it consistent with MoS for capitalisation?
it's consensus on how the words are transcribed from Babylonian. We discussed this somewhere before - can't recall where. Will have a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternate names— too American for my tastes, "alternative" is meant, the names don't alternate
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • beat him up—too informal, even for Oz
changed to "assaulted" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • polygon of 4 sides. — spell out "four", or better still replace the phrase with the equivalent but more concise "quadrilateral". As written, it's like using "polygon of three sides" in preference to "triangle"
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

It reads well, but really I am too unfamiliar with the astronomical depth of the article to be able to comment properly. A few points on the prose:

thanks for the input - making it as accessible as possible to lay-readers is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "In non-western astronomy" - Are Arab astronomers and Tunisian shepherds considered to be "western"?
in a very broad sense, this is part of the classical/western lore yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Wild Cockerel (Yějī 野雞) was at the centre of the Military Market and its stars were uncertain." - needs some clarification of what the second part means.
have tried to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Southeast of the Wolf was the asterism Húshǐ (弧矢), the celestial Bow and Arrow, ..." - This sentence is too long and complex.
split now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "To the Boorong people of Victoria, Sigma Canis Majoris was Unurgunite, and its flanking stars Delta and Epsilon his two wives." - I would add "were" to the last part of this.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You mention that Lepus is "the hare" but not that Columba is "the dove".
tricky this - as Columba only mentioned in map/boundaries but, not mythology - would seem odd to mention it there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sirius is also a binary star; its companion is called Sirius B, which has a magnitude of 8.4" - What is the magnitude of Sirius A then? Perhaps that's a silly question but this paragraph describes Sirius as a star and then states it is in fact two stars.
Sirius B is 10,000 times fainter, the -1.46 magnitude at the beginning is the magnitude of Sirius A to all intents and purposes. I have added the bit to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... is another star that has been classified Beta Cephei variable, ..." - I would insert "as a" in this sentence.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... is now undergoing nuclear fusion of helium to generate energy." - The use of the active rather than the passive tense here makes it sounds as if the star has a purpose!
removed as redundant anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "At the other extreme is ..." - At the other extreme from What?
in size - preceding segment is about one of the largest stars then talk about one 5 km in diameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "However the fainter star is the more massive at 19 Solar masses ..." - "Solar mass" is lowercase elsewhere in the article.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... yellow and orange stars and covers an area the size of the full Moon ..." - Perhaps use the word "apparent size".
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "On the other hand, a globular cluster in Puppis, NGC 2298 ..... and instead be of extragalactic origin." - The verb form is wrong at the end of this sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the alterations you have made and now support on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the look-over and suggestions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Victoriaearle[edit]

Hi, Cas - almost total layperson here, without a bit of knowledge! It'll take me a while to read through (frankly haven't a clue what I'm reading) but a couple of questions:

input from laypeople is essential to make the damn thing as readable as possible :) - your copyedits were fine, just had to revert to "3 Canis Majoris", which is a Flamsteed designation. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "History and mythology" (which is an interesting read) is followed by "In non-western astronomy". I'd think the second section is also history & mythology? I came away unsure whether the Chinese, Maori and Tharumba still believe these myths and thought you might want to consider retitling the sections along the lines of "History & Mythology" with subsections for western and non-western.
not sure how that happened - was supposed to be a level under "History & Mythology" - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Section is a lot of gray space and is very stuffed. Maybe move the pic down to break it up? mean up? we talking about the nonwestern segment...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that's as far as I've gotten, but interesting reading. In my part of the world I know it as the winter dog star. Pls ping to remind me if I don't get back to this soon. Oh and made a few tweaks - feel free to revert. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is another article I'd like to run on a major centenary this year (8 Dec. 2014, the centenary of her loss at the Battle of the Falkland Islands). I wrote this article in its earlier form about 5 years ago, before significantly overhauling it a little while ago. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few weeks ago (see here). Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Be consistent in whether you use "First World War" or "World War I"
  • File:The_German_far_eastern_squadron_in_Kiau-Chau_Bay.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Development of Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (tc) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The development of Grand Theft Auto V was one of gaming's biggest undertakings. Developer Rockstar North are based in Edinburgh, but they've always done American cities justice. Making GTA V's open world required visits to California, with photo and video footage documenting the journey. An entire score was written. All of the main parts were mo-capped. This article covers all bases, thanks to the developer's many interviews with journalists. I feel it's written well enough to be up to scratch with other featured articles. CR4ZE (tc) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from URDNEXT[edit]

  • Support! I love Grand Theft Auto and I was wow'd by how well it's written. It has more info then any other website on the subject. URDNEXT (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

  • I will be leaving comments here within the next week or two. Sound good? Snuggums (talkcontributions) 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't wait. You were a big help with the main article's FAC, too. CR4ZE (tc) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It was my pleasure helping you get GTA V itself to FA :). Now for the commentary on this.....
  • Give a time range in the lead for when the development began
  • "published by Rockstar Games"..... released
  • "its release was widely anticipated"..... something about this just doesn't feel right. I'm not doubting its factual accuracy, but it seems either misplaced or poorly phrased.
  • "sources allegedly close to the developer"..... how about giving the names of these "sources"?
  • "first acknowledged the existence of"..... maybe first confirmed would be better
  • "did not meet its original projected release date"..... here you should include what date this was scheduled for
  • "Early in Grand Theft Auto V's development" → "Early in the game's development"
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref should not be used more than once in a row per paragraph (i.e. don't use ref#90 more than once in a paragraph without uses of other refs in between the uses of ref#90)
  • Metro is not a reliable source
  • When using multiple articles from a common source (i.e. multiple IGN refs), only link the work in the first ref used from the common source
  • "Buzzfeed" is not a reliable source
  • The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized
  • Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ' (check the refs for this)
  • Do not use stylizations
There's my 2¢. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 06:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I've taken care of everything above. Some feedback—the development timeframe is murky territory. I'm seeing sources that say four years (putting it at 2009-13), but others say immediately following GTA IV (2008-13). BuzzFeed are direct interviews with key people involved in the game, and the facts being cited are coming out of their mouths, not the journalists'. Hollywood Reporter was, but it was using the wrong field. Couldn't pick up quote mark violations, can you point them out? Stylisations pertaining to what? Cheers, keep the comments coming. CR4ZE (tc) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. I've taken another look through the article and it seems to all have been taken care of. I was referring to different capitalizations in terms of stylizations, but now can't see it. I'll take your word for the Buzzfeed links and ambiguous starting time, though would ideally link to a different site. In any case, I now officially support! Outstanding work. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

Not sure if I'll post a full review, but I do have a few comments:

  • Given that it's been recently announced that this game is being ported to PCs, is this nomination premature?
  • The article appears to have been written entirely from the perspective of the game's developers (complete with lots of quotes from them). Surely industry experts, reviewers and critics also have perspectives which should be included (eg, was the development process unusually smooth or difficult? Why are all the three playable characters male?, etc)
  • Watch out for peacock prose and corporate jargon. From skimming the article I spotted stuff like "Grand Theft Auto V was envisioned to exceed the core mechanics of the Grand Theft Auto series", "The three interwoven stories had a positive critical reception and confirmed the team's confidence that building Grand Theft Auto V around this model was an innovative decision" and "co-opted a number of other studios owned by parent company Rockstar Games to facilitate development"
  • "Rockstar North, the core 360-person team behind the game" - exactly 360 people all the way through the development of the game? Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The recently-announced port is covered in the main article, and main development (as covered in this article) has been complete since 17 September 2013. There could be merit in having something on the port here but there's no real development information out there yet.
  • Third-party sources can't give as much insight into a game's development because they aren't in any way involved with it. They can comment on the game's development, like estimating the development budget and time, both of which are covered. I don't see any scope issues, because I haven't seen any solid development information come out written from an objective third-party.
  • I don't think the examples you cite are peacock, but they're on the border of jargon, yes. Is there more throughout? I'll likely run through a self-copy-edit and have your point in my mind.
  • The source unambiguously says 360. If it was 360 all the way through or not is irrelevant because that's what the source says, and going beyond that would be WP:OR. CR4ZE (tc) 12:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • the article does not clearly give a framework for when the development started. It just says after GTA4, but when was that without clicking on links?
    • Actually it does that but only very late in the article
  • I would find it interesting for the intro to estimate the number of people involved in creating the game
  • aren't there pics of people involved in creating the game?
  • potential power of both consoles => ????
  • the first section quote needs quotation marks
  • the collapsed table needs a title
  • I think promotion and delay and leaks should be moved at the end of the article
  • Grand Theft Auto V was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.=> but was released on other platforms too
  • Is the name Los Santos just random, or was it chosen for a specific reason?
  • shouldn't be there some form of concluding section like criticism or acclaim?

Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Nergaal!
  • This has been mentioned above; sources are saying different things about the exact development time frame. We'll look into it.
I meant say that you should have: "GTA5 started being developed right after GTA 4 was released in 20xx"
  • We can't really estimate how many people were involved in creating the game; we must rely on references.
Article says somewhere that over 1000 people were involved in programming? Say in the intro something along the lines "over 1000 ppl were involved in the programming alone"
  • Pictures of the development team definitely exist. I'll look into adding some, if you wish.
  • I'm unsure as to what you're confused about; "potential power of both consoles" seems like a fairly straightforward sentence. Please elaborate.
"potential power of both consoles" is in the text. which 2 consoles? gen 7 or 8? wii or not?
  • Added quotation marks.
  • Added title.
  • Promotion" and "Delay and leak" are both related to the Business part of development, which is why they are at the top.
What i meant is sthe article should start with a background, then with the actual development, then with the promotion. I don't see the point in splitting the article into 2 sections when you can have 3 chronological ones. isn't this article about the chronology part of the series?
  • That statement remains true; the game was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. When it is released for other platforms (or when development information of such is released), then more information shall definitely be added to the article.
What I meant is that the article needs to clarify that the game went beyond the 2 consoles
  • I'm not sure where the name "Los Santos" came from; it's been used since Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004), so it's unlikely that you'll be able to find the source of origin.
give it a shot
  • The Reception of the game can be found at the main article. This article is about the development only, so there's no need for critical response here.
-- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll try and track some free shots of the developers/key people. If not, are you cool with non-free? On the article's structure, I wrote this using Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, whose layout I like. I'm open to deviating from that. I doubt there's anything on the origins of Los Santos's name, because I've read possibly every interview and feature and found nothing. If there was, it'd probably be something from a GTA San Andreas interview back in 2003, and using that would broach WP:SYNTH imo. CR4ZE (tc) 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

CR4ZE, do you need more comments? If so, I can look the article over and give some. Tezero (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, sorry didn't see this. I'd love to get some comments from you if available. Cheers, CR4ZE (tc) 03:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember passing this for GAN, and now, after a few minor wording and grammar (yes, I know it's UK English) changes, which you can revert if you'd like (please look at all of them first, though), I'm confident in giving this my approval. Well done. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Grand_Theft_Auto_V_development.jpg: FUR could be expanded, particularly to fill in the "n.a." parameters
  • File:GTA_V_Main_Theme.ogg's FUR also should be expanded, and what is the length of the original piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Iris[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a powerful hurricane in October 2001 that was one of the worst on record in Belize. However, it was pretty small, so the damage was pretty localized. I believe this article is the best compilation of sources on the storm on the internet, and it passes all FA criteria. Hope you enjoy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dank, I forgot to show my appreciation earlier! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Image and Source Review all images are validly in public domain sourced from United States government agencies. A source check of five citations indicates no close paraphrasing concerns and states the information cited. Secret account 01:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support well done hurricane article Secret account 01:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support excellent article. My only suggestion is that, in the see also section, the description for the Belize hurricane is a tad repetitive of the article title (and maybe is not necessary). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I removed the redundancy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I made minor edits to the references. There was inconsistency with middle initials of the NHC authors. Other than that, I had no issue with the article.--12george1 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: the caption for the track map mentions colored points, but does not indicate what each color means. (Yes, I know that it uses the SSHWS color scheme, but most readers don't know that, and MediaViewer hides the {{Saffir-Simpson small}} template transcluded in the File page. Please change the caption so that it indicates what each color means somehow. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's OK, I brought this up on the project talk page, as this would affect every article in the project. I hope that the discussion will be resolved shortly, however :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Per the results of the linked discussion, I've gone ahead and implemented the change on {{storm path}}. That addresses all of my concerns, so switching to support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The topic of the order of units used has been brought up elsewhere, and since this is a candidate that is impacted, I thought I should draw some comment from those watching this FAC. The WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement guideline says that for scientific articles, the main units chosen will be SI (with conversions in parenthesis) - km or km/h should come before m or mph. The MOS says that for non-scientific articles related to the US, you can use customary units first, but this seems to be about Belize. So my question to the nominator/voters: is this a scientific article or a non-scientific article related to the US? -- Netoholic @ 00:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ulysess S. Grant is an important figure in American History. I believe the Ulysses S. Grant article deserves FA status. The article is thoroughly researched and edited. Any controversial sections are previously discussed and remedied. The article is neutral and does not attempt to view Grant in either a negative or positive way, void of POV. The narration is free of passive sentences, hidden verbs, or clichés. The main sources include William S. McFeely's (1981) Grant: A Biography (Pulitzer Prize), Jean Edward Smith's (2001) Grant, and H.W. Brand's (2012), The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses S. Grant in War and Peace. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Ulysses S. Grant article starts during Grant's early years, continues through Grant's military career prior to the Civil War, Grant's days as a struggling farmer in Missouri, his dramatic military rise during the Civil War, his term as commanding general during Reconstruction, his feud with President Andrew Johnson, the Election of 1868 and eight year presidency, his world tour, bankruptcy, struggle with cancer and the success of his Memoirs. The article concludes with Grant's death and funeral. The historical evaluation is neutral. Addressed in the article during his Presidency are issues such Gilded Age politics, Native American policy, and Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments as to further improvement of the article are welcome and sought out. I recommend that the Ulysses S. Grant article be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments. Welcome to FAC.

  • Some paragraphs, for instance in Overland Campaign and victory and Vicksburg, have no citations at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. I will check into finding the appropriate citations. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Citations have been added to closing paragraphs in sections mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. I've done some copyediting in the lead, but judging by the lead, there's more to do here than I'm going to be able to cover during this FAC. Maybe someone else will step up, and if not, you can nominate the article for A-class, and get help with the copyediting there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Striking that ... it gets better below the lead, I'll copyedit, maybe ask some questions, and hopefully someone can finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "During this time, Grant quickly perceived that the war would be fought for the most part by volunteers and not professional soldiers.": I get the sense that that has some connection to the paragraph it's in, but I don't know what the connection is.
I added context. Grant was required to military train volunteers during his first battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dank for your copyediting! Great job! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments Generally good, but very wordy especially regarding the battles. Regrettably, I have no time for a full review. Some of these suggestions may be out of date, with Dank's edits
  • " following his military successes in the American Civil War. Under Grant, the Union Army defeated the Confederate military; the war, and secession, ended with the surrender of Robert E. Lee's army at Appomattox Court House." It strikes me this can be consolidated (ending the previous sentence with a period). " As commanding general, Grant led the Union armies to victory in the American Civil War, which ended with Robert E. Lee's surrender to him at Appomattox Court House". Makes clearer Grant's role.
The Civil War did not end at Appomatox Court Court House. Fighting continued for about a month and then there was a Reconstruction period until 1877. I would change the word "with" to "after" for context. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • " in the administration. " Suggest "in his administration".
  • Some of the later sentences in the first paragraph may be too much detail for a lede, especially the first paragraph and possibly should be moved later in the lede or deleted. Several items are mentioned in multiple paragraphs and could be usefully consolidated, for example the economic discussion in the third and fourth paragraphs.
    • See what you think now, Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "She never took occasion to visit the White House during her son's presidency." possibly "She did not visit the White ..."
  • Can something be said about why Grant's family was influential?
    • I went the other way and deleted that bit; I agree that if we say they were influential, then Wehwalt's question should be answered. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside Grant's friends, were any members of his class particularly well-known?
  • "Grant made his way to the front lines to engage in the battle," presumably he was given orders that permitted this? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "the location that made them the happiest" possibly "the place where they were happiest" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " in a failed attempt to prevail upon the Congress to rescind an order that he in his capacity as quartermaster should reimburse the military $1000 for losses incurred on his watch, for which he bore no personal guilt." perhaps "in a failed attempt to persuade Congress to absolve him of a $1,000 debt to the Army for goods gone astray while in his custody" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " to continue his service as quartermaster. " this can be deleted if earlier in the sentence you say "Grant's next assignment as quartermaster" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "but it did not succeed" perhaps "but without success" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " and promotion of abolishing slavery." perhaps ", and emancipation of the slaves" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Was Grant still in the militia when these promotions took place? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Grant's demeanor had changed at the outset of the war, renewing his energy and confidence." Not sure what this means. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The strategic importance of Henry and Donalson might be mentioned, that they commanded the Tennessee and Cumberland at the point where they are closest together, and thus disrupts Confederate movements and trade there. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Confederate stronghold of equal numbers " 48,894 Confederates? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I like the way you've set up the discussion of Gen. Order No. 11. You excuse Grant before telling us about it, then after doing so quickly excuse him again. Criticism is minimal and consigned to late in the paragraph, and, after all, it was the fault of "overly aggressive" cotton traders. I think a more balanced approach is needed here. This is part of what Grant is remembered for. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: The section is neutral. Added criticism. Also put in more information from Grant's point of view. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • so at the end of the first day" of what? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "refugee-contraband slaves" I would simply say "slaves" or "former slaves" (after all, they had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation). Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: McFeely refers to the slaves as contraband of war. I took out the word "refugee" and refer them as "freedmen" after the Emancipation Proclamation. I also added the term African-American to the section paragraph and added more context. Eaton was put in charge of the "contraband slaves" prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in December 1862. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the word "contraband" since I could not find the term in the wording of the Confiscation Acts. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed the word "freedmen" from the article section since Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation does not use the term "freedmen" in the document only that the slaves were set "free" "forever". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "and were vulnerable to" "who might be killed by", perhaps Fixed
  • It strikes me that the blow-by-blow description of the battles, in what is necessarily a long article, might be shortened considerably.
Comments: The battles have been summarized yet content is needed to be preserved. There needs to be a description of the battles in order to give the reader further understanding of the Civil War and Ulysses S. Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I may look in again later, but right now there's more to do than I have time to comment on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I responded to all of these that didn't require checking the sources, down to where I stopped copyediting at Shiloh. See what you think. -Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Good job Dank! Thanks. I added information to the lede covered in the Ulysses S. Grant article. I kept the corruption charges to one sentence. The historical reputation sentence also covers Grant's defense of corrupt appointees and his conservative response to the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I'll look back in it may take me a few days to do so my Internet is limited right now. It would be good to have this as an essay that would mean we'd have everyone from Andrew Johnson to McKinley as FA except for Garfield--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Didn't know that, good work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent, through the article, in your capitalization of "Union Army" vs. "Union army". 10-3 for the former, by my count. Fixed
Military career
  • "that territorial gains" since you have not mentioned previously, perhaps "that the territorial gains from the war" Fixed
  • "spread slavery throughout the nation" I don't see this. It did nothing to increase slavery, say, in Massachusetts. However, it did expand the territory open to slavery under the Missouri Compromise. Suggest saying that, or similar. Fixed
  • How long was Grant required to serve because he was at West Point? If he served longer than the minimum, at what point did he change his mind? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: Grant was required to serve four years after West Point. That would make his mandatory military service up to 1847. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The word "intemperance" twice in a short space is jarring. One is in a quote; however, the other is not. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "to rescind the resignation" perhaps "to refuse the resignation" Fixed 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: I used the word "repeal" 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "advance at Forts Henry and Donelson was the most significant advance" perhaps the first "advance" can be "victories" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "bivouacked nine miles south at Pittsburg Landing" Nine miles south of what? And a metric conversion, I suppose 14 km, should be inserted. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "missing division" the reader is likely to be puzzled by this. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "so at the end of the first day" I doubt all this was built in a day, if it was, it should be specifically dated, not "December 1862". I would rephrase, perhaps deeming them "attempts". Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "After the failed assault," surely assaults Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "refugee-contraband slaves displaced" I still don't like this phrase. I think you're saying more than the reader is going to get. It doesn't sound as if Eaton did what Lincoln intended. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth recounting the (possibly apocryphal) story of Lincoln saying that if Grant was a drunkard, he'd send a barrel of his brand of whiskey to his other generals. Fixed 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment:I added the "I can't spare this man; he fights" quote from Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not too familiar with the events of the battle, but you mention Hooker taking Lookout Mountain after you've said he was already there, sending weapons etc. to the besieged federals. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " be fed supplies from the James River." Perhaps "be supplied via the James River" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can be clearer that Grant was willing to expend troops to bleed the Confederates as the latter had fewer to spare. Fixed

Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I added that Grant knew a war of attrition due to Lee's limited troop replacement would be successful. This war of attrition, however, was dependant on if Lee would fight in an open field. Lee obviously did not take Grant's bait knowing the same thing that Grant would be victorious. That is why the first battle was in the Wilderness. There after Lee began to entrench his forces. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "defeated Early, saving Washington from capture." I'm very dubious that Early could have captured Washington, given the heavy defenses around the capital. Or held it. Possibly overstated. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Although Grant approved the Battle of the Crater, it's not like he thought of the idea. (link needed). Also, the idea wasn't bad, it's that the Union troops didn't advance through the crater fast enough. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Insert Comments: The Crater may have been a success and a failure. A success at blowing up Lee's line defense and a psychological defeat for the Confederates. Lee retaliated by blowing up a Union barge and wounded Grant's aide Orville E. Babcock in the hand. There were many casualties on both sides and the war tended to take a more sinister side using deception. Of course the Crater failed to stop the War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The description of the peace conference should have a link to Hampton Roads Conference. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would probably mention that the problem with the terms concluded by Sherman were that they were political in nature, effectively leaving the North Carolina state government in place. It may be explained more clearly in our Andrew Johnson article, which does indicate that Johnson played a role in telling Sherman to stick to military surrenders. I suggest that a similar brief explanation be included here. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Celebrations etc.
Congressional etc. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • A sense of why Grant concluded the things you mention in the first paragraph might be helpful. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: This section has been expanded. Explanations have been given for Grant's view point. Also more information on the Grant Johnson fued. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "arguing that Congress should allow representatives from the South seated recognition." Overly complex. The South elected putative representatives and senators in elections (mostly excluding blacks) in 1866. Congress wouldn't seat them. Make this clearer. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: Mentioned Johnson wanted to seat Congress with Southern white conservatives. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Radical mayor of Baltimore" Radical Republican? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Military governors general" I don't recall the use of the term "governor general", which has a British Commonwealth air about it. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, given the limited relevance of the Baltimore incident given the warfare between Johnson and the Republicans, I'd rather have the same space spent in an explanation of the deteriorating relations between them. As it is, you pop into the political situation now and then, and I'm not sure that readers who are new to the situation are going to understand it. Since Grant was a key player in all of this as both sides wanted his support, a better explanation seems warranted. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: I added information in the Ring around the circle tour section on Grant and Johnson fued. That is when Grant privately pulled away from Johnson. Grant's publically disassociated with Johnson in 1868 over the Tenor of Office Act and returning the Secretary of War office to Stanton. Grant would have committed a felony if he did not return the Secretary of War office back to Stanton. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think your description of the Tenure of Office Act overlooks that it only protected officeholders during the term of the president who appointed him, and Stanton was not appointed by Johnson. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Johnson's true frustration was with Grant's taking the Radicals' side." So you're saying Johnson was lying in saying he thought Grant had broken his word? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: Don't forget that Grant would have been breaking federal law and been fined. Had he stayed on as Secretary of War Grant would have not been elected President, since he would have been a felon. Don't you think this was another attempt at getting Grant out of the way so Johnson or another Democrat could be elected President. Grant would have been a convicted felon. According to Grant he had no choice but to give up the office. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "unsuccessful attempt to impeach Johnson". Really?
Given that Johnson was impeached, i.e. Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, I'm again feeling that there's more to be done here that I can help with. I'm certainly not in a position to fact check the article, I have limited internet right now. That one is just so ... glaring, I'm not sure what more I can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Image review: Well, all images are out of copyright, but I think we can do a bit better. I'm working to improve it. On which subject, what do you think of this, cropped rather tight, to replace the current sketch of his wife? Alternatively, this shows her alone, and is a better photo of her, but leaves out his children. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I suggest starting a new article titled "Family of Ulysses S. Grant". We have to keep this article size managable. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: There's already a picture of her in there, it's just a very bad engraving that should be replaced; I'm trying to decide which of two better images to replace it with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Portrait photos will work in the article. I don't agree the engraving is bad, however, a good photo portrait of First Lady Grant is acceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick observation only: G'day, when I run the Harv Errors script it identifies a few issues with the references, including a few short citations that don't seem to point to a long citation, for instance "Whyte, pp. 18–39"; "Ackerman, pp. 90–91" and "Murray & Blessing". Are you able to find the bibliographic details for these and add them in, please? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
How is the article coming along? I think there have been great improvements to the narration and context. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how familiar you are with the FAC process, but all of those comments above are changes the reviewers think you should address. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Yes. I am trying to go through each one that has not already been addressed. Any help is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Footnotes should immediately follow punctuation without spaces
  • "According to Simon, party defections, the Panic of 1873, increase of scandals, and the North's retreat from Reconstruction weakened Grant's second term in office" - source? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are still a few Harv Errors to be corrected
  • Missing bibliographic info for Murray & Blessing, Ackerman, Whyte Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - suggest creating a Further reading section
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • FN80, 133, 147, 190: page formatting
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated full citations
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are included and if so how they are formatted
  • No need to include "Pulitzer Prize" in the citation
  • ISBN for Perry?
  • Publisher for Rhodes?
  • Year and ISBN for Simpson?
  • University of North Carolina Press or The University of North Carolina Press? Check for consistencies in naming. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Of Human Feelings[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. I attempted to address the previous FAC's concern about close paraphrasing by soliciting another reviewer ([10], [11]). I've also cleaned up the references for a consistent citation format/style and copy-edited/rewrote some parts ([12]). Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DISEman[edit]

Overall I find this a well written, comprehensive, well-researched, referenced and structured article worthy of a Featured Article but there are a few (minor) points that may improve it further:

  • The statement under Recording that "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded jazz album in the United States" may be true but there may be more details- a quick check of Litweiler, p. 152 states "It was the first time an American label [i.e. CBS] had recorded a digital album in New York, and it made front-page news in Billboard. here is the Billboard front page. Also Litweiler, pg. 153 supports the statement under Release and promotion that "A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Critical reception is excellent using the contemporary reviews - I added one from Rolling Stone but the ref may need some editing to fit the article. Any reason for avoiding the rating template?
I've revised and moved the Rolling Stone quote so that it stays in-topic with the rest. That template is optional and didn't seem to suit this article IMO--only Christgau (The Village Voice), Yanow (AllMusic) in a retrospective review, and now Morrison (Rolling Stone) rated the album, and their ratings have been easily worked into the prose, so the template would only be reiterating a few ratings. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All in all you have my Support DISEman (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. Article is well-balanced both in structure and content, sources cited seem reliable and plentiful. Friginator (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Semitransgenic[edit]

  • Comment for a featured article, citing anonymous record reviews directly is not ideal, would prefer to see such content replaced with secondary source citations that make the observations the editor is drawing our attention to. Also, saying how something charted and then citing the chart as a source could be viewed as OR. Otherwise, aside from those minor points, looks OK to me. Semitransgenic talk. 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the line "...had no success on the American pop charts", Semitransgenic? Because that's attributed to a source that says this. Also, all the reviews cited in #Critical reception include the names of critics/authors of the reviews. Do you mean you'd prefer that there was a book that summarized the reviews itself? Citing reviews directly, however, is the most common practice in WP:ALBUMS articles, and there is a project page dedicated to such sources being cited (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Froglich[edit]

Oppose This article, while by no means bad, fails at present to (IMO) maintain good criteria. Quibbles: 1) While the article is indeed comprehensive (it's obvious that fans have poured in a lot of effort) it is arguably excessively so given the minimal notability of its subject (a poor-selling album by a musician with five dozen other works, many of which are demonstrably far more noteworthy (e.g., The Shape of Jazz to Come being inducted into the Library of Congress, etc) yet possessing small article size relative to this one. Featured status is generally granted to well-written articles in topics of widespread interest; 2) no references in the lead; 3) grammar and sentence construction less than optimal (e.g., absence of parenthesizing where appropriate, poor deployment of commas and semi-colons, etc); -- My advice is to tighten up the article to hang onto good status -- and be glad you have that in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Froglich, 1) What "fans"? I'm the only editor who has contributed to this article, which was this before I started working on it. It is based entirely on what reliable secondary sources have written about it--significant coverage establishes notability (WP:SIGCOV), not popular interest. And the majority of the coverage cited here is from high-quality book and journal sources, who've decided it warranted this much coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have written so "excessively" about it. And although I get where you're coming from, "widespread interest" has nothing to do with the FA criteria (WP:FACR), so personal opinions on its notability in relation to other articles shouldn't be a factor in your assessment, only the points listed at WP:FACR. There are top-importance articles that garner the attention of certain editors, and there are articles like this, which I chose simply because the album interested me at the time, as it often the case with FAs--their importance varies and isn't exclusive to top or high-importance articles. 2) If what's written in the lead is written and cited in the body, citations are redundant in the lead (WP:LEADCITE) 3) semicolons before conjunctions like and is an unnecessary, outdated practice ([13]) I don't see the reasoning behind this addition/revision with parenthesizing, which deemphasized the line about critical praise, used "featuring"--a present participle--in the first paragraph, and linked "harmolodic" (which is already linked in the first paragraph). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you've been told that the rules of English grammar regarding sentence composition and punctuation are in some state of flux at present, you are have been led astray. (Grammar-monster at the vanguard of slovenliness does not impress those of us who know what we're doing.)--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to sound uppity about this, or refrain from backing up your argument with anything saying otherwise. My point was your change was unnecessary, as Geraldine Woods brings up in Wiley AP English Language and Composition. Preferential grammar changes aren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
<shrug> Believe what you want. Reality will intrude soon enough to spank all those bad commas.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • While I understand this article is your labor-of-love, that has no bearing on whether or not it is ultimately worthy of Featured status -- being informative and well-written are not the sole requirements. Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles acquire Featured status. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a Featured article, yet neither the preceding nor succeeding Beatles album articles are accorded even Good status despite being written in the same format with the same arrangement and depth of information. I would guess Pepper is Featured because it contains A Day in the Life, which tops some industry lists as the greatest pop/rock song of all time. In other words, it is immensely notable as one of it not the most famous song by one of if not the most famous bands in history. -- If any article concerning Ornette Coleman becomes Featured, it will likely be the one concerning his album or single with the most significant historical resonance.--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong impression of the GA and FA processes Froglich, and I don't see the relevance of other stuff existing when several other low-importance album articles have been promoted to FA status, including Confusion (album) (one of mine) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. If this irks you, then you can choose to abstain from reviewing, but what you're arguing isn't an "actionable objection" and isn't benefiting the review process in any way, to better the article for FA purposes. Please read WP:FACR--the level of importance of the article's topic is not part of the criteria. I'm beginning to feel there's an issue of understanding WP guidelines (WP:CIR) when you've overlooked the criteria page and basic MOS guidelines in your edit to the lead. Ian Rose, am I missing something? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't have time for a long reply now but it's quite correct that the perceived 'importance' of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Potential" is arbitrary wishing-for-ponies; I referenced an actual Featured article. Dan brings up two more (which shoot down his own notability-is-unnecessary argument: Confusion (on at least one Best 100 Album lists) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which had two Grammy nominations) are considerably more successful and influential than Of Human Feelings. To reiterated a previously made point to Dan56, he should concentrate on improving the article concerning Coleman's best known and critically acclaimed work, or that of Coleman himself.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
GrahamColm, this reviewer's obstinacy and lack of competency are becoming an issue, as are his smug responses to every point I make in response to his arguments, which unlike mine, cite nothing to back up his claims. Disregard his review, because there are no actionable objections. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
And yet it was your bright idea to bring me in here, wasn't it? (Competence: having the brains necessary to realize that I wouldn't immediately club you with that upon the first hint of fallacious argumentum ad hominem.)--Froglich (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, you're using your personal definitions of Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. I attempted to randomly solicit reviews, rather than dubiously canvass editors I'm familiar with, whom I'd expect to be competent and have a grasp of those guidelines and criteria. You've been told by an FAC delegate that "importance" has nothing to do with the criteria, yet you continue to impose your personal criteria. How do you respond? By canvassing a retired editor you know opposed this article's previous FAC ([14]) Your review is losing more and more weight. Dan56 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to wager on whether or not he still dislikes it?--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • Generally excellent
  • In the 'critical reception' section, there are some words and phrases that sound like they could be quotes and if not, are perhaps not quite neutral / encyclopedic: eg "compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless"; "displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair"; "encompassing of a century of creative development in African-American music". It would be good if those offline sources were checked.
The first one is a paraphrase of this. The second is a paraphrase of "the emphasis is never on virtuoso pyrotechnics for their own sake, or in empty stylistic phrase mongering. In every composition there is a synergy of thought and feeling that communicates instantly." The last one is a paraphrase of "The music literally pours out of this ensemble in strains of melody and rhythm that sums up the last 100 years of creative development in Afro-American music." I don't think neutrality matters when the words/paraphrase are attributed to a source in the prose, eg. "Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said" what would otherwise not be neutral if in Wikipedia's words. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've tweaked one of the three; the others look OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The present tense here strongly suggests it is a quote: "his more knowledgeable friends have found Of Human Feelings to be the best of the three albums..."
Present tense? Isnt "have found" past? Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be "his more knowledgeable friends found..." but i realise i haven't used the right term - i'm nota grammar expert - but this phrase has him talking about the present - it sounds like a quote from a reporter of the period. Anyway, if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a quote... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Subject to these checks, i'm a support on prose, structure, comprehensiveness and referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BananaLanguage[edit]

The third and fourth FAC reviews for this article were closed after a reviewer noticed what they perceived to be plagiarism. It is not clear to me that the nominator's attempts to address these accusations are sufficient ([15], [16]) because the types of close-paraphrasing that caused concern in the third review are quite different from simple lexical substitution. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@BananaLanguage:, I asked for an independent review (as requested in the previous FAC) from an experienced editor and significantly revised several parts of the article (many of which were unnecessary, but I did it anyway just in case anyone is still anal about it just because there were a some examples--and no more since--brought up by one or two editors in the past FAC). I did mention these revisions at the top of this FAC, if you didn't notice? In the above comment from hamiltonstone, I showed relevant portions of print sources to prove to the reviewer they were paraphrased properly. If your concern is based in something you can prove, then bring it up. Otherwise, I don't know exactly what you expect. Your comment doesn't seem to suggest anything practical. Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
One practical option would be to invite GabeMc and Laser brain to randomly, or closely, inspect the article to check for too-close paraphrasing. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@BananaLanguage:, both retired not too long ago (User talk:GabeMc, User talk:Laser brain). And the burden would still be on me to dig up the sources I had originally found and write the relevant portions out for whoever is reviewing, which I demonstrated in the third FAC with at least one review in its entirety (the Detroit Metro-Times review), as well as the three that hamiltonstone asked about above. I've offered before to transcribe the relevant portions ([17]). The crux of this is whether these concerns or perception of close paraphrasing are yours, not theirs, and why, and also whether all these revisions since have made any difference in your opinion. Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith, however, this is proving difficult because you have a history [18] [19] [20] of close-paraphrasing sources. I think, in this case, it would be helpful if you could provide access to as many of the materials as possible, to help the community ensure this article is free of plagiarism. BananaLanguage (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
BananaLanguage, I don't have a history--you're citing what was an on-going dispute between I and GabeMc at Are You Experienced and at this article's past FAC again. As far as what sources I could "provide", I obviously could transcribe them all, but you don't expect me to do that, do you? I revised much of this article since that FAC you're bringing up, so perhaps you could request certain print sources citing the material that appears "untouched" or unrevised since that time. This is the diff between January when the last FAC happened and now. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would benefit this FAC review if you could provide the surrounding paragraph of text for all the sources marked as subscription required. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Those four sources marked "subscription required" are news sources behind a paywall. Unfortunately I cannot access those anymore, because I had found them through Google News Archive and its search result previews (rather than actually having a registered account for Newsbank); Google News Archive was shut down in December of last year (Google_News_Archive#History), after I had written the bulk of the article last Fall. Certain book sources cited in this article, however, can still be accessed (to an extent) without a paywall of any sort, either through GoogleBooks' previews or's preview. Dan56 (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I can take a trip to the nearby deposit library and use their resources to do this for you. The time-frame I propose to complete this task is 15 days, due to other real-life commitments . BananaLanguage (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
n.p. go for it. Dan56 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

I recall GrahamColm saying in a previous FAC of mine that alt text isn't an FA requirement ([21]) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Even though the section isn't long, maybe you could split "Personnel" into two columns for musicians and additional personnel?
What do you mean? It already is lol (Of_Human_Feelings#Personnel) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that splitting the "Bibliography" section into 30em columns would make it a touch more organized.
K, done WikiRedactor. Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, I have nothing else to add; it is clear you've put in a lot of effort into this article because it is in great shape. I trust that you will handle the alternate text, and my other two suggestions are pretty much a matter of personal preference, so I am happy to give you my support. Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Overall, looking very nice :). Just several things:

  • When in 1982 was the album released?
None of the sources available or used specified, SNUGGUMS. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to jazz writer Francis Davis, 'a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent' for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be 'on the rise again'"..... meaning "celebrity status"? Also, you might wanna tweak the beginning to something like "Jazz writer Francis Davis sensed Coleman was about to have a 'modest commercial breakthrough'".
"Celebrity" is used as a noun here → "Fame, renown; the state of being famous or talked-about." I used "According to" so that it would read better as the leading sentence in that paragraph; the next sentence uses the structure you're suggesting: "[Writer so-and-so] said that..." Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've noticed there are no singles listed..... is this why the album has no chartings either?
I don't think jazz albums ever produce singles, but this album did not chart on any major charts. Only the Top Jazz Albums chart, but a "Charts" table/section is only necessary if there are multiple chartings (MOS:ALBUM#Charts) Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem, just thought I'd ask SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The "M" in AllMusic should be capitalized.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discogs is not a reliable source, so you'll have to take that out of the "External links"
It's not being cited as a source, just an external link, which have a different criteria for inclusion--"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (WP:ELMAYBE → "Links to be considered") Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see..... has Discogs been approved of as EL (like IMDb)? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd assume so, since there was a template created just for it, which this article uses (Template:Discogs master), but the criteria for any EL is usually a site having relevant information that otherwise can't be worked into/cited into the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Very well. I now officially support. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This is incorrect, Discogs most certainly is a reliable source, given releases are verified among a number of users to ensure release details are verified. So I don't know where that idea comes from whatsoever. As for EL's, Discogs has been used across WP for YEARS now – where have you been, lol!? This is additionally the very reason there are also four clear EL templates for linking to Discogs pages accordingly, see here: Template:Discogs Jimthing (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There's my 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow[edit]

A comprehensive media review was last done in the article's second FAC, so I'll do another to see how things stand:

Support on criterion 3, although I'll reiterate that it'd be nice to have definite source of the album cover. Adabow (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Done ([22]) Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

I'm running late at the moment but I have read through the article, and it's crisp and incorporates technical terms well. One thing-

  • The lead's first two paragraphs both start with Of Human Feelings. I'd suggest altering the second one to "it" or "The album"
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that grammatically if the paragraphs start that way, although I find it more clearer to readers than "it", and "the album" may not be clear with the reference to "1975 album Dancing in Your Head" in the second paragraph's first sentence. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than that I will support this article, assuming that it will successfully pass a source check. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Flow Ridian[edit]

Dan56 asked me to comment here, so I'll make a few observations.


  • "It was well received by critics". I think well-received need a hyphen.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, the album made no commercial impact". I see this a lot on Wikipedia, and while many editors would not even mention it, this is a poor use of however, which should be used sparingly and should always follow a semi-colon.
Debatable → Linguistics professor Pam Peters insists that "there is no basis for suggesting that contrastive however should not appear at the beginning of a sentence" (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004). In fact, says The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage (2005), "placing however at the start of a sentence can emphasize the starkness of a contrast." Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Coleman enlisted his son Denardo as manager after a dispute with his former managers over the album's royalties, which inspired him to perform publicly again during the 1980s." Two things, 1) it's odd to use enlisted here, which sounds faintly militaristic. Maybe hired is better. 2) You need to clarify what which refers to, as you mention to distinct things, a) the dispute over royalties, and b) Coleman's hiring of Denardo. It would also be nice to avoid using "manager/managers" twice in such a short span. Maybe, "After a dispute with his former managers over the album's royalties, Coleman replaced them with his son Denardo."
a) The source cited (in the body, supporting what's in the lead) doesn't specify "hired", i.e. earning a wage for it. b) Would "...royalties, a change that inspired..." be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's seems better to me. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


  • "He wanted to teach his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach, based on their individual tendencies, and also prevent them from being influenced by conventional styles.[2]" This is a faulty parallelism, because wanted and prevent are in different tenses. Maybe "He taught his ... and prevented them from"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "He had been fired by jazz organist Charles Earland" The preceding proper noun is Coleman, but I think you mean Tacuma.
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Coleman encouraged him to remain what he called a 'naturally harmolodic' player.[6]" I don't know what this means, and I wonder if most casual readers will either. Is there a way to translate this so it's not jargon?
Well, the jargon is explained in depth in the first paragraph, so readers should ideally read that first lol. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still wondering if this makes enough sense to casual readers. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Recording and composition

  • "However, they encountered mechanical problems". Again, in high-quality writing we would not want to see the use of however unless it follows a semi-colon. It looks like you use this construction four times in the article; I suggest that you avoid this here and elsewhere.
  • "Jazz writer Stuart Nicholson viewed it as a culmination of Coleman's musical principles". I think you want to use the definite article here, not an indefinite one.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "a type of music that originated in 1970 and is characterized by intricate rhythmic patterns". This contains another faulty parallelism: originated is past tense, and "is characterized" is present tense.
Changed "is" to "was". Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Nix strummed variants on the melodies, while Ellerbee provided accented linear counterpoint.[20]" Omit the comma; it's unnecessary.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "middle frequency" needs a hyphen.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "collective improsivation" Spelling error.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "and posits Coleman's extended solo against a dense". I think this is an odd use of posits. Instead of "and posits", maybe "juxtaposing".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Release and promotion

  • "on which it spent 26 weeks" should be "where it spent".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to Steve Lake of The Wire, Coleman offered only a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers with the album and consequently appealed to neither market." This is awkward; maybe, "According to Steve Lake of The Wire, On Human Feelings offered a "funk/jazz compromise" to consumers and consequently appealed to neither market.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "and did not conform to what he felt was the corny, romantic image of jazz that many of the genre's fans prefer". Either corny is the exact word from the source and should be in quotes, or it's a poor choice for encyclopedic writing.
The original word from the writer was "cornpone" which refers to characteristic of rural people, so would "simple" be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If the original word is "cornpone", I would avoid using "corny", as it has an entirely different meaning. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Changed to "simple". Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

  • "Kofi Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times believed that Coleman's synergetic approach displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair". Faulty parallelism: "believed" and "displays" are different tenses.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "have found" should be "find" or "consider".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "the stylistically ambiguous music is potentially controversial and 'unratable, but worth checking out.'[35]" Check the article for compliance with LQ.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony". This sounds like a close-paraphrase of jargon.
It's paraphrased from "The clashing keys require the biggest leap in faith, as they give strange dimensions to old-fashioned polyphony." This is a music article, some theory terms are expected. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that some terms are acceptable, but ideally these terms would then be linked. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Polyphony" is linked, "key" is linked in #Background. Those two should be the only ones that can come off as jargon-y. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "On the other hand, Rolling Stone magazine's Buzz Morrison wrote" Swap "on the other hand" with "conversely" for a more encyclopedic tone.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Of Human Feelings was voted as the thirteenth best album of 1982 in the Pazz & Jop, an annual critics poll run by The Village Voice.[40] Christgau, the poll's creator and supervisor, ranked it number one in an accompanying list.[41] In a 1990 list for the newspaper, he named it the second best album of the 1980s.[42] At that point, Of Human Feelings was one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's 'A+' grade, which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade'.[43]" This strikes me as a bit off-topic, as it's too much about the poll and Christgau, and the "ultimate accolade" seems to be there to glorify Christgau, not the album. Is an A+ grade from Xgau really the "ultimate accolade", as in the best the entire world has to offer? This at least needs to be put in context that it's rare to get an A+ grade from Xgau. Then again, this is a somewhat obscure jazz album, which is just the sort of thing that Xgau loves. You need to trim this to stay on topic of the album.
I disagree; the "ultimate accolade" contextualizes the praise of the album. This is the most significant poll of American music critics, and the source cited--Press-Telegram--believes the "A+" from Xgau is the "ultimate accolade", and it is written as such, not as fact. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? Why is this article a good place to explain details about Christgau's rating system? I think this is wildly off-topic, and if it belongs in the article at all it's in an endnote, not in-line text. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not explaining anything about Christgau's rating system, just that the album being one of the few to receive an "A+" is notable (it'd seem less notable to readers without that characterization, which is attributed to the source as an opinion). Three sentences in the paragraph related to Christgau (two of which are accolades) don't seem off-topic or excessive. Furthermore, the last paragraph in this section deals with accolades, so "the ultimate accolade" would sort of be related to this. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the cited source explicitly state that OHF is "one of only 18 albums to have received Christgau's "A+" grade"? Anyway, this is way too much detail about the poll and Xgau, and it's inherently misleading because Xgau is massively biased in favor of this type of music, but the way this is written it sounds as if OHF competes equally with the other albums Xgau has reviewed. This needs to be removed or significantly revised. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, of course it says OHF is "one of only...". Why else would I have cited it to support that sentence? Also, according to whom is Xgau massively biased in favor of this type of music? He acknowledged disliking "fusion jazz", yet this album and Jack Johnson were given "A+", suggesting he can reconcile that "prejudice" with a record he believes is good, regardless of its type. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that Xgau is not a rabid jazz enthusiast who loves Ornette Coleman? The way this is written, it implies that the "ultimate accolade" in jazz music is to get an A+ grade from Xgau, which is beyond absurd and POV! I am strongly contending this language as written. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no mention of "jazz" in this paragraph. It doesnt imply that at all. I don't see how this is a POV issue when the source mentioning both the album and Christgau is a third-party who found it notable enough to point out what they pointed out. This complaint doesn't seem to be grounded in anything other than the bias you suspect Christgau has, which isn't even relevant since a) he's a critic, that's kinda part of their job, and b) he's admitted to disliking jazz styles like fusion and '30s jazz. As an aside, if he really did love Coleman, he would have written at least a word on The Shape of Jazz to Come at some point in his journalistic career ([23], [24]) Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The source is writing about Christgau, not Coleman and not OHF. You are bending over backwards to include the source not because of what it adds to the reader's understanding of OHF or Coleman, which it adds absolutely nothing to, but because it unduly glorifies Christgau. That's why I object to this language. The cited sources is a book-plug for Christgau, it's not even about Coleman. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Further, I think that you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what the cited source actually says, which is "The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include", but they are saying that an A+ is the "ultimate accolade" that Xgau gives, not that it's the "ultimate accolade" in the whole world!!! Flow Ridian (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting the source's words; "Ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear in the preceding paragraph: "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus." And what "bending over backwards"? I found the Press-Telegram source simply by putting the album title in Google News Archive. You seem to be the one making such an effort to contest this "language" and scrutinizing sources that make statements/claim I'm guessing you happen to disagree with, right? Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath and legacy

  • "After Coleman went over budget" should be "After Coleman had gone over budget".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "'never saw a penny of the royalties.'[21]" Check for LQ.
Source cited was a quote → "... and I never saw a penny of the royalties." Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What I mean was, "never saw a penny of the royalties" is not a complete sentence, so the full-stop should not be included inside the quote marks. There appears to be several issues in the article pertaining to LQ. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Also fixed the others ([25]). Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "After showcasing his style of avant-garde jazz on the album, Tacuma became widely viewed as one of the most distinctive bassists since Jaco Pastorius." This is a wild claim, IMO, and at the very least this contentious text should be immediately followed by the source.
"If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (WP:OVERCITE) Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this claim needs further verification from independent sources. I had never before heard Tacuma mentioned in the same sentence as Pastorius, and quite frankly it's a ridiculous claim, IMO. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Apart from your opinion on the matter, is this claim contradicted by "the prevailing view within the relevant community", or is Stuart Nicholson a questionable source here (self-published, conflict of interest, etc.)? I'm not going to research this in-depth, but a quick search with the two names offered these: [26], [27], [28]. I don't see why this is an exceptional claim @Flow Ridian:. This article cites three books written or co-written by Nicholson, and I don't know of a contrary view regarding this. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see these cites as supporting the claim that Tacuma is in the same league as Pastorius, which is what you are implying. By "mentioned in the same sentence" I meant to compare their relative abilities and influence. Stuart Nicholson is one source, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Flow Ridian (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any saying otherwise. Why do you consider this an exceptional claim? Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The way it's written, you would think that Tacuma ranks significantly high on lists of electric bassists in jazz music, but TMK he does not. He is usually not even mentioned. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
An NPR blog which qualifies itself with "We obviously can't cover all the 'basses' with five artists and songs, so be sure to tell us your favorite electric jazz bass players and performances in the comments", which lead to two that do. Nicholson is a "high-quality source", and the timeframe of the viewpoint he's summarizing is the 1980s. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see him near the top of any lists, do you? If you do, then why not add a source or two so this isn't an issue? Flow Ridian (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What "lists"? What does that have to do with the "one of the most distinctive bassists" claim? Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It presents Tacuma as on a similar level as Pastorius, which is ridiculous. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Nicholson is a high-quality source; I don't see you questioning any other material attributed to him throughout this article, so the fact that you're citing your personal opinion here undermines the complaint. Also, "distinctive" doesn't suggest greatness but uniqueness. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much all I can find. Flow Ridian (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed most of the concerns, did my best to respond to the rest, @Flow Ridian:. Let me know if I overlooked or misunderstood anything. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I made some follow-up comments above, but I hope you come to your senses regarding the Christgau excess. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per FACR 1d: "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias", at least until this business about over-emphasizing Christgau and misrepresenting the cited source is resolved. The Press-Telegram source is saying that an A+ from Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he gives in Record Guide: The 80's, not that it's an "ultimate accolade" in the music world. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear by the source in the sentence right before the reference to "the ultimate accolade": "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus." There's no reason for the source reiterate the fact that A+ is Christgau's highest grade. This is a gripe based on some point-of-view issue you seem to have with jazz and this particular critic, rather than WP:FACR. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, you asked me to review the article, so I did. You should be thanking me, not debating my oppose. Now please show some class, and stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. Flow Ridian (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I've corrected every legitimate concern and appreciate that you pointed them out. But these two aren't such concerns, and you were welcome to disregard the message/invitation like I said. I've defended them and responded to your belief that it's misrepresenting and overemphasizing that critic, which is your basis for opposing smh. Don't accuse me of classlessness when you've interjected these concerns with an appeal to personal opinions ("ridiculous", "absurd", etc.) Dan56 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you insist on personalizing this, but I must say that you've acted aggressive and immature. I don't dislike jazz music or Christgau, in fact I have a deep respect for both. That's not the issue here, which is that the Press-Telegram source is using the "ultimate accolade" in terms of Christgau's rating system, not as in the entire world of music. E.g., a grammy award for best jazz album would certainly top an A+ grade from Christgau, right? Maybe you should ask a delegate to take a look at the source and decide which one of us is reading it incorrectly. GrahamColm, are you interested in weighing-in here? Flow Ridian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 141[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about another one of the US Highways in Michigan (and Wisconsin). Again, our coverage of this highway on Wikipedia is probably the best of any place online, and I feel the article is deserving of the FA star. The article also covers the history of US 102, the first ever US Highway designation to be decommissioned, lasting only two years after the creation of the system. Imzadi 1979  01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment—I will be out of town until July 1. Any reviews requiring attention will be addressed after that time. Imzadi 1979  10:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and very well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:US_141_(WI).svg: permission parameter in template contradicts tag given - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The template is correct; all of those highway marker designs are PD-MUTCD, although editors in the past have incorrectly implied or claimed credit for recreating them. The file description page has been updated, and the project is working on fixing these inaccuracies, but progress is slow. Imzadi 1979  23:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. Having stumbled here from my own FAC, I thought I'd comment.

  1. So I notice the article is U.S. (note the dots), but the opening sentence says "US" without the dots. How come?
  2. "sections are either freeway or expressway " - I'm not sure this is grammatically correct.
  3. "eight miles (13 km)" - per WP:NUMERAL, both numbers should either be spelled or written as numbers. Make sure you do the same elsewhere in the article (for example: "one mile (1.6 km)")
  4. " for about 14.5 miles (23.3 km)" - that's awfully precise for saying "about"
  5. "The northernmost Michigan section is about 44 miles (71 km), " - shouldn't there be a "long" at the end?
  6. "The entire length of the highway in Michigan has been listed on the National Highway System (NHS),[2] a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility." - as with a previous FAC, you don't actually say what "country" you're talking about.
  7. "except for about four blocks along Broadway Avenue which is part of an intermodal connector with the Port of Green Bay" - "which" --> "that"
  8. "The rest of the highway northward from Howard, Wisconsin, has been listed." - I feel like grammatically, there should be a "however" somewhere in here.
  9. "Wisconsin Highway 29 (WIS 29) merges in at an intersection" - this doesn't read that well to me, specifically the "in at an" part
  10. "Running north and northwesterly" - both should either have the "erly" on the end, or neither should, not the current format.
  11. "bypassing Haven, Wisconsin, in 1959 as well." - why the "as well"?

All in all a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I numbered your points so I can refer to them individually:

  1. The Chicago Manual of Style (16th. ed.) and our MOS both state a preference for the undotted form, however WP:USSH specifies that the article be titled with the dots. At some point, that naming convention will need to be updated, but we have project members who are traditionalists and prefer the periods. (I will note that the standard abbreviation has always been either "US #" or "US-#" for all but one state, and even that state has been recently switched to eliminate the dots in the abbreviated form.)
  2. Tweaked.
  3. Actually, I disagree, but for the sake of not making a mountain out of a molehill, I'll switch these for now. (adding on 08:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)) The MOS provision you refer to deals with lists of numbers, and doesn't actually speak to
  4. It's rounded to the nearest half mile, which is still pretty imprecise. Would rendering it as 14 12 miles (23.3 km) make this clearer at the risk of the anti-fraction brigade popping up?
    • I don't think that'd be clear, but I still don't know why you say "About 14.5". Obviously it isn't exactly 14.5 miles, I think that's a fair assumption that it'd be plus or minus a few hundred feet. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That segment is 14.46 miles long, so it's "about 14 12 miles (23.3 km)" or "about 14.5 miles (23.3 km)", so the question is, decimal or fraction? Imzadi 1979  22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • But it's not even 14.46 miles long. That itself is an estimate, since I'm sure it isn't exactly 14 miles, 2428 feet, and 9.6 inches. It's understood that it's not exact. If you want to be exact, you could just say 14.46 miles and say per whatever department listed the length. For hurricane articles, by comparison, we would say "The National Hurricane Center reported a peak intensity of 160 mph (260 km/h). No need for the about, since that's what the agency said. Just fwiw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • All measurements are approximations since the only exact measurements involve definitions. There are exactly 5,280 feet in a mile, and 100 centimeters in a meter, by definition. The source says that segment is 14.46 miles in length, which gives it a precision to the hundredth of a mile. It could be anywhere from 14.455 to 14.464 miles if a more precise ruler were used, but that doesn't matter.

            The more precise values are found in the junction list table as the terminal mileposts for segment, and the overall total is found in its more precise form in the infobox. If I gave each of the four segment lengths the full precision from the sources in the prose in the lead, the passage would be open to criticism for being clunky. So that's why they were rounded off with "about" preceding each measurement. That qualifier is supposed to indicate that each value is rounded off, approximated, etc. To make this all crystal clear, I've revised that passage now to:

            "The highway has two segments in each state; after running through Wisconsin for about 103 miles (166 km), it crosses into Michigan for approximately another 8 miles (13 km). After that, it crosses back into Wisconsin for about 14 12 miles (23 km) before crossing the state line one last time. The northernmost Michigan section is about 43 12 miles (70 km), making the overall length about 169 miles (272 km)."
          All five measurements are rounded to the nearest half mile, and conveniently the total of the rounded segment lengths equals the total length from the infobox rounded off. (103 + 8 + 14 1/2 + 43 1/2 = 169 and 168.82 rounds to 169). Even the metric conversion follow nicely. Imzadi 1979  08:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • While I don't think it's ideal seeing the fractions, I'm willing to support the article now, since it's a fairly minor issue (ditto the US vs. United States). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. I didn't include that word because "length" appears later in the sentence, and none of the other component lengths use the word "long".
  6. And I get dinged on US Highway articles if we use too many mentions to the United States, or US because of the consistent repetition of the "US" in the highway name. (One of the non-American FAC delegates actually removed "US" from "US state of" in a previously nominated US Highway article before promoting it.)
    • I'd hardly say that the one prose mention of "United States" is too much :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Ian Rose: pinging you because I recall that you were the delegate that changed wording before in a US Highway article before promotion. Imzadi 1979  22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Also, a quick survey of Category:FA-Class Michigan road transport articles would show that several other FAs on Michigan's highways use substantially the same wording as this article does, and none use "United States'" in place of "country's" in that phrasing. Imzadi 1979  22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I know other articles may use the wording, but this FAC is for this article. FAC is a great time to get new ideas, after all ;) But lemme know what Ian Rose says about the wording. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The title of the article in nice big text at the top of the page is "U.S. Route 141", and the abbreviation "US 141" is sprinkled throughout the prose quite liberally. Any readers getting through the lead, which also calls it a "United States Numbered Highway", should know that this highway is in the US by the time they hit the sentence in question. Any online readers who hover their cursor over the link to the "National Highway System" will also see that it links to "National Highway System (United States)", although that doesn't apply to printed copies. Imzadi 1979  08:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
            • If I remember rightly, it was the opening line of the candidate in question that I felt had too many US references. I believe it was along the lines of "US Highway 141 (US 141) is a north–south United States Numbered Highway in the US states of Wisconsin and Michigan" or some such, and since we had "US" in the highway name and "United States Numbered Highway" and the states were linked anyway we didn't need "US states". That said, I see no problem substituting "United States" or "US" for "the country" in the first paragraph of the main body -- I'd say by the time readers get to that paragraph they know what country they're in but OTOH it's not repetitive in itself to mention it in that particular sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Fixed.
  8. I reworked that series of sentences to avoid that phrasing.
  9. Tweaked.
  10. Changed.
  11. Dropped the wording.

Imzadi 1979  02:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... amphetamine; you probably know what that is. In the first and second FAC reviews, a single reviewer complained about the sentence-by-sentence standard used in the article in each review. Following the closure of the second FAC, I sought feedback from WP:MED on this and obtained project-wide consensus to retain the current citation standard. Please keep that in mind before linking the user essay WP:CITATION OVERKILL during this review.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Added: 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">).Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Hi coordinators - since a month has passed without any new reviews, I had a question about the potential outcome of this FAC in order to determine whether or not I should spend time trying to convince other editors to take on a review; with that in mind, if no one else starts a review before this nomination closes next month, will this FAC be archived?
Following the closure of the last FAC, Shudde continued his review at Talk:Amphetamine/Archive_4#Shudde and eventually decided that he didn't want to continue reviewing after I sought feedback on WT:MED regarding some of his alleged problems with the article. Summarizing the first two FACs: three reviewers (Anypodetos, The Sceptical Chymist, and John) supported after their concerns were addressed; two reviewers (Aa77zz and Shudde) opposed but will not provide further feedback after I attempted to address the concerns they raised; one editor (Hamiltonstone) completed his review and remained neutral, deferring to your judgment on the level of technicality/accessibility of the article content; and lastly, two editors (Axl and Curly Turkey) didn't make a position statement or finish their reviews. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi, normally we'd archive a review that's had no interest for a few weeks but I'm always loathe to do that when it's been round the block a couple of times and the nominator has made a genuine attempt to address concerns. It's also pragmatic: if we remove a nom because it's had no comments then standard practice would be to allow you to renominate without waiting the usual two weeks and that doesn't really change the situation. What I did do last night was list it among the FACs requiring urgent attention at the top of WT:FAC. What you can do is invite via neutrally worded posts all the main players in the previous FAC noms (supporters, opposers and neutrals) to revisit it here, and we'll see what develops in the next week or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming[edit]

It's hard to find people to review long articles at FAC, especially ones on very technical topics such as this. Anyway, with this being your third nomination and all, I would like to apologize that you've had to wait five weeks to get your first comment. And you're going to have to wait a little bit longer, seeing as I don't get back from studying abroad in Spain until the 31st. I'll post my first comments sometime between August 1 and August 5. Since I don't know anything about pharmacology, my review will focus on prose, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the general reader.

My FAC reviews are very thorough (see Carolina Panthers and Paul Tibbets), so once my concerns are addressed that may very well be enough to get this article promoted. I log in at least once a day, so if you don't see anything by August 5 make sure to drop me a note at my talk page. I look forward to working with you on this important article. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4: Because the cite template automatically produces the "ed." for edition statements, you shouldn't include it manually
  • FN8 and others: USFDA is a publisher not a publication. More broadly, check italicization throughout, as there are a number of things italicized that shouldn't be
  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sesame Street international co-productions[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, yet another Sesame Street article at FAC. This article happens to be one of my favs, and is near and dear to my heart. I took it on when other editors began to complain about a lack of international perspective of The Show. I thought it was ridiculous feedback, since I, like Joan Ganz Cooney, thought that it's "quintessential American", but also like Cooney, was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. My single favorite Cooney quote is in this article; can you guess what it is? Anyway, this is a charming article about a charming aspect of the SS ethos, its international co-productions. I look forward to your feedback, and please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Fascinating topic - read this while I was at the gym - looked ok, will read again and drop queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cas; for some reason, this strikes me as funny. ;)
:Lone sentence constituting stubby third para in lead - can we tack it onto previous or expand or do something? I hate two-sentence paras.....
Went with first choice; the article isn't long enough to expand it. Usually, I tend to agree with this sentiment, but I think this could be an exception. However, I believe in following reviewers' suggestions, unless they're unreasonable, which this isn't.
Also would read better if in chronological order.
As of 2006, there were 20 active "co-productions". - I think we can remove quote marks after the first mention (?)
Got it.
The section co-productions is a tad listy in places...and leaves me curious - any more interesting facts that can be sprinkled through about any of the shows would improve the flow - also, do any US muppets feature in overseas co-productions?
At first, this section was a list! ;) I didn't want to include too much information, mostly because for most of the co-productions, there isn't that much information available. For the few that have more, I figured that most of the information belongs in their individual articles. However, I see your point and have started working on expanding some descriptions. I'll let you know when I think I'm finished. Re: your questions about how the U.S. Muppets are used: there's not a lot of information about that, either. I didn't want this to become a list of characters and their relationship to their American counterparts; again, that better fits in their individual articles, I think. However, in the "Production" section, there is some information about how our Muppets are used to inspire the co-productions' characters, and that they appear in the dubbed versions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Casliber: I've completed, as per your request, expanding some of the co-productions descriptions; hopefully, it accomplishes what you've asked and the section is less list-y and flows better. Thanks for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking better. Some more:

Rejig segment on Rechov Sumsum - should explain why different straight after (i.e. the bit on being first co-production should come directly after mention of difference.
Took me a while to figure out what you meant, but I think I got this.
Sort of - really the bit beyond "differed/different" should be clearly indicated that it is causative with a "because" or linking word which indicates it, not "and" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll assume that my fix was satisfactory. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It'd be good if there was some conclusion on current status or future plans right at the bottom. Right now article just...ends. Not a huge deal but might be improved somehow.
Actually, I think this might be an issue with how this article is structured. At one point, this article looked like this: [29]--a list, really. I kept the structure because, as other editors advised me, there needed to be some information about the individual co-productions here. The previous section ("Production"), however, ends with the SW opening up their library for future co-productions; I think that accomplishes what you desire. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, I know - I find alot of this is kinda like kneading dough - you squish and mould and other bits become distorted, so you knead some more. Let me look and think some more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg: FUR could use expanding. Who holds the copyright? Why is this image necessary for our understanding of the article? Same with File:Sisimpur.jpg
  • File:Tv_sesame_park_katie.jpg: puppet designs can be copyrighted - what is the status of this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I took the easy way out and replaced these images with free ones. Please let me know if they're appropriate for this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of "History" and the second paragraph of "Production" do not end in references.
Got 'em.
  • How about adding fn 14 to the References?
Because my style of formatting sources, which is similar to how they're often formatted in printed books, is that I place printed sources like the Finch book in the Works cited section if it's used more than once. I only use Finch once in this article, so it gets its own footnote.
  • The lead mentions "the initial productions in Canada, Mexico, Australia," This made me expect something about the Australian co-production. 40 years at Sesame Street
I will do some research about the Aussie show and see if I can add anything. (Your source is a blog, which isn't reliable enough.) In the meantime, I removed the list of countries and changed the wording so that it better reflects the body.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hawk, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Tentative support; agreed with the nominator, this is both a charming and very necessary article in the SS canon. As always well-written and researched and conscientiously thorough in presentation. I especially like the generally nicely-judged level of detail in the chronological sections. Shoebox2 talk 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Just a few things that caught my attention (besides a couple very minor grammar/spelling errors I've taken the liberty of fixing):

  • First sentence under "History": international producers from various countries including Germany contacted the CTW within "a few months". Next sentence: German producers contacted the CTW after about a year. Not sure either about the time discrepancy or why Germany should be singled out in particular.
Good point; I removed the second mention of Germany.
  • "She hired former CBS executive Mike Dann, who left commercial television to become her assistant, as a CTW vice-president. One of Dann's tasks was to field offers to produce versions of Sesame Street in other countries." -- A bit awkward, and redundant. How about "Mike Dann, a former CBS executive whom Cooney had hired as a CTW vice-president and her assistant, was assigned to field offers from other countries to produce their own versions of Sesame Street."
Much better; replaced as per your suggestion.
  • Totally optional, based on your understanding of the subject, but: from what I've heard from (admittedly informal) British sources the story of the BBC's de facto rejection of the SS phenomenon is interesting enough that it might be worth a few more detailed sentences. At least, it would be instructive to know just why they thought it was "too controversial", which bare statement sounds really odd in re: a heartwarming children's puppet-based educational program. :)
Good question. My opinion is that this story, which I agree is interesting (and funny too), is best for Sesame Street in the UK. This article is a summary of the co-productions, which is in the current version. Any more would result in undue weight. On a side note, I've taken it upon myself to create/expand articles about the various co-productions, and the UK version(s) is in the queue, as they say. Currently, I've been working on Iftah Ya Simsim, the Arabic version. It's been a lot more work than I thought, because there's a lot of information out there about it (in English, even), but it's been fun. I believe that my efforts will do much to combat the systemic bias in this project, especially about non-Western topics. Wait for a future FAC near you! ;)
  • I feel like the third and fourth paragraphs in this section might be better off reversed? That is, begin by talking about the co-productions in general, and then talk about the specific highlights/controversies/spinoffs.
At first, I went "heh" about this suggestion, then I actually tried it and have decided that you're right. I wanted to end the section strongly, so I moved the last 2 sentences about mission and Cooney's quote about missionaries (that's my favorite all-time SS quote, btw) to a separate paragraph at the end.
  • "Production": "...the "experiment" accomplished by the original US show..." -- Not fond of 'accomplished' in this context; how about 'undertaken'?
Got it.
  • "Imitating what the producers did..." -- Getting nitpicky here I know, but maybe "In imitation of the process used by the producers..." would sound a bit more encyclopedic-like?
Well, *I think* that starting a sentence with a preposition isn't all that encyclopedia-like, either. So how about this for a compromise, even though it makes it passive: "The need for preschool education in each country was assessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts, which paralleled what the producers of Sesame Street did in the late 1960s."
  • Again, thinking paragraphs 3-4 of this section might flow better if they were flipped--going from generalizations to specifics.
Okey dokey, smokey.
  • "1970s": "Garibaldo's performer, Fernando Gomes, became a puppeteer because of the show's influence." -- This is in reference to the American show, yes? Because as written, the reader's impression is he signed on as puppeteer on the Brazilian version, whereupon that version inspired him to become a puppeteer.
No, Gomes was inspired by the original Brazilian version. I can see how you were confused, so I re-checked the source and clarified.
  • "1980s": No doubt it's covered in the show's own article, but I'm thinking a sentence or two describing the impact of the Israeli/Palestinian co-produced version would be appropriate here. Ditto for the similarly ambitious Kosovo version.
Um, actually I wouldn't know; I haven't worked on those individual articles yet. However, as you state above, I'm trying to be even-handed here. I mean, why are the effects of the shows in the Middle East more important than the effects in Sweden? Because we have more invested in that region? Or because it's in the news more? I don't think this addition is necessary.
  • "1990s": "The show is supported by its patron, Egyptian First Lady Suzanne Mubarak." -- Should be past tense in light of more recent events, no?
Yes. Actually, it's a grammatical error, since it doesn't match the tense in the rest of the paragraph.
  • 2000s":...the producers of the Kosovo co-production... pioneered a format called the "visual dictionary". Instead of showing individual words on the screen, children were encouraged to label words verbally." -- ...? Not quite getting how "visual dictionary" and "label words verbally" refer to the same concept?
Yah, the source wasn't clear how the phrase ("visual dictionary") described what they were trying to do with the language, so I went back and paralleled the source more closely, and removed the phrase.

User:Shoebox2, I think that I've hit everything. Thanks for the very helpful review, and please let me know if I need to do anything more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, all now looks great from my POV, and as always thanks for so carefully considering my suggestions. Happy to change vote to firm support.Shoebox2 talk 01:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okęcie Airport incident[edit]

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Chances are you've never heard of this, but don't scroll past just yet if you're interested in either football or the Cold War, because this is actually quite an interesting little episode in Poland in 1980. It basically centres on the Poland football team's forward player Stanisław Terlecki, who also happened to be both an anti-communist activist and a bit of a cheeky so-and-so. Poland were at the time one of the best football teams around. In November 1980 their goalkeeper got drunk the night before their departure for Italy and was left behind as punishment. Terlecki, who had already been repeatedly banned for trying to unionise the footballers, led the players in an ultimately successful revolt against management over the goalkeeper, then directly defied the communist authorities by arranging for the mostly Catholic team to meet the Pope in Rome. Terlecki and three other players were sent home, a rather spurious court-martial ensued and Terlecki ended up emigrating to America. He returned home in 1986 with hopes of regaining his place in the team but never played for Poland again.

I took this up to GA a couple years ago, and have just polished it up a bit in the last few days. I am confident it now meets the FA criteria. Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reviewing this for WP:POLAND:
    • "industrial unrest"?
      • I don't see any problem with this term; are you saying it is incorrect grammatically or that it is not an accurate description? Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Can you reference it? I just redirected the unref stub we had on industrial unrest to labor unrest which I think would be more appopriate, but in either case you probably should reference the use of those terms in this context. Presumably by repeating and footnoting this phrase in the article body. Ditto for political unrest. As a sociologist, I do think that the use of such terms should not be hap-hazzard, but properly thought-out and referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I've tried to phrase this better, with another new reference in the body; we now refer to strike action and other forms of civil resistance for political change. Is this better? Cliftonian (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "The punishments regarded by many as too harsh" - missing "were", and weaselish
    • "The first non-communist trade union in an Eastern bloc country," - this probably should be split into a stand alone sentence
    • "top sides" - I think just saying "best" would sound better
    • soccer terminology like "forward" should be linked
      • OK, I have gone through and put links; please tell me if I missed any Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • " the intellectual Terlecki " this sounds off
    • "held a degree in history " - masters?
      • The source statement (from Sports Illustrated) doesn't say: "He earned a degree in history from the University of Lodz and thus became the first national team member to have graduated from a university in anything but physical education." Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps User:Tymek would be able to help. I'd like to see him comment here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • can you discuss notability of Hotel Vera and why it should or shouldn't be linked in light of WP:RED?
    • Wojciech Zieliński is probably notable, has an article on pl wiki pl:Wojciech Zieliński (komentator sportowy). Ditto for pl:Stefan Szczepłek and pl:Włodzimierz Reczek, and the magazines pl:Piłka Nożna (tygodnik) and pl:Tempo (gazeta). If you think any of them are not notable, please explain it here, otherwise link them per WP:RED
    • "A senior national team official, Colonel" - I am not sure I understand his position...? Security/bodyguard?
      • I don't actually have the full article (Tymek originally added the information, I think), and in any case it's in Polish, so I think I'll leave this for him. (Note for others: Tymek has been messaged and pinged.) Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "whose own car was to hand" - is this English? What hand? "At hand"?
      • "to hand" is proper English, I am fairly sure. Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • briefly explain what Przegląd Sportowy was (another sports magazine)
    • "The players, who were mostly Catholics," - who wasn't?
      • I put it this way rather than saying "all Catholics" to allow for the assumption that at least a couple of them may have been atheists. (The sources don't cover the players' religion in any real detail.) I think it's relatively safe if you prefer to say they were all Catholics (as on paper they probably all were), or perhaps we can say "predominantly Catholic" or something like that? Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, what the sources say? Otherwise we are dealing with OR. It is likely all players were raised as Catholics, but... we need sources for their faith, or this should be dropped. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
          • OK, well I think we can take it out without losing too much of the meaning anyway (most people with a cursory knowledge of Poland would be aware that the country is overwhelmingly Catholic) Cliftonian (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • generals are notable by default, so why wasn't pl:Marian Ryba linked to Marian Ryba?
    • link Ministry of Internal Affairs (Poland)
    • Terlecki played in Poland until 1993, I think, while the article gives the impression that upon his return he was never allowed to do so
      • Sorry for being ambiguous, should have made clear he played at club level (albeit not internationally) after he came back. Have rectified this Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • pinging User:Tymek who knows a lot about Polish soccer's history.
      • I messaged him already (he helped a lot with this article already!) but thanks for this, good thought Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Overall, nice job. Ping me when the above are fixed or argued, and I'll consider whether I am ready to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review Piotr, I have answered each point above. I hope you are well and look forward to continuing the review Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Is there meant to be something in the now-empty Footnote section?
    • No, there was but took it out, thanks Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • GBooks links can be truncated after page number
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include location and/or publisher
  • Archivedate and accessdate should have the same formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this Nikki. Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I was the GA reviewer of this article some considerable time ago and remember enjoying it greatly. It seems even better now, and I will be happy to support once my very minor concerns are addressed. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • "which in turn led to first the suspension of several prominent players": To my ear, "led first to..." sounds more natural but maybe that's me.
  • No you're right, that's better. Nice eye (ear?) Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "was tired and hungover when the time came to leave the hotel": Is hungover formal enough for the lead here? (Sounds like an old Private Eye headline about "tired and emotional"...
  • I've shortened to just "hungover" as the fact that he was tired seems to be included therein (rare indeed that you have somebody who is hungover but not tired) Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "having spent a sleepless night on the town drinking with a friend": Sleepless night I think usually suggests insomnia; we could perhaps lose "sleepless" altogether, but perhaps if something is needed, maybe "having not been to sleep following a night on the town with a friend"?
  • I've adopted your wording, which I think is better and clearer Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "much to the indignation of some of the other players" Redundancy?
  • "Smolarek received a more modest ban, with a suspension period": Something of a tautology here, as it would be hard to be banned without a period of suspension!
  • Ah! What is meant is that the punishment was suspended (like a suspended sentence), so nothing actually happened to him. I've changed to "Smolarek received a more modest, suspended ban", which I hope is clearer (and better prose) Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In June 1976, a series of protests took place across communist Poland": Would this be better as "During June 1976..."? Not sure.
  • Hmmm. I'll think about this one. I prefer "in" myself, just because it's shorter. Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "the government announced plans to sharply increase the fixed prices charged nationwide for many basic commodities": A split infinitive is, I think, perfectly acceptable but does drive some pedants to rage and is a target for some person to comment on when this reaches the main page. Perhaps best avoided?
  • Have changed to "to increase sharply" Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Several Poland players knew her and Młynarczyk had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus.": I'm afraid I slightly lose the meaning of this sentence. Is it "Several Poland players knew her" [and also that] Młynarczyk had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus" or "Several Poland players knew [both her and Młynarczyk] had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus." Or something else?
  • I've put a comma in (her, and Młynarczyk) to try to make this clearer. It's the former case. Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "A number of journalists attacked the players who had supported Młynarczyk; the Przegląd Sportowy sports magazine ran the headline "no mercy for those guilty of the scandal at the airport" while Tempo was similarly severe, proclaiming "this cannot be tolerated"": Maybe I'm being stupid, but why do we have small caps here?
  • I put it like that because it's a newspaper headline (thought it would add flavour as it better resembles how probably it would have looked as a headline), but it doesn't seem to fit with MOS so I've taken this out Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the football association president, Polish Army General Marian Ryba, escorting them on the plane.": We have a "with [noun] [verb]-ing" here, which is best avoided.
  • OK. Have also redrawn slightly here Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Smolarek received a two-month ban, with a six-month suspension period": I'm again struggling with the difference between ban and suspension here.
  • I have tried to clarify here again (see above). "Smolarek received a two-month ban, which was suspended for six months" Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "There were several other incidences of drunkenness": Would "incidents" be less of a mouthful? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your thoughts and kind words Sarastro, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I hope my responses above are all right. Hope you're well and have a great week. Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: Looks good to me, and I'm happy to support now. Nice work! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the kind words Sarastro. =) Cliftonian (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: The use and placement of images is splendid, and the article is an entertaining read.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Marshal! Glad you enjoyed the article. Keep well! Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 Rosario gas explosion[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an explosion that took place in Rosario, Argentina, a few days before a national election. It is a short article, but it contains all the info about the event that I could find. Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


  • "Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, the risk of structural failure was high." - I'm not sure what building this line is referring to, and it's not clear based on context. The building that had the gas leak?
  • What is Curto's jurisdiction? Is he a local judge in Rosario?
  • What's the current status of the trial? It's not exactly clear what the timeline is on
  • "The demonstration in Rosario was not a cacerolazo, but..." - is this referring to the demonstration organized via social media?
  • What's the current status of the location? Has the reconstruction work been completed? If not, any reasons why its behind schedule? Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence talks about the building of the explosion. The jurisdiction is a legal one, Curto recused himself because with the accumulated evidence the case was no longer among those he can work with. I have added a new sentence about recent news (the case itself, however, is still going on). The demonstration was initially intended to be a number of cacerolazos taking place in all the major cities of Argentina at the same time; as it turned out, the protest method was changed in Rosario but it was still a cacerolazo elsewhere. As for the status of the location, I have not found any report in newspapers (not even local ones) about completed buildings or delays. Cambalachero (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I added "country-wide" to the first mention of the caceralazo for clarity - see if that's ok. Are there any Wiki editors who live in the area who might be able to take a picture of the site? It wouldn't allow you to add more text, but you could at least show the state of the site as of mid-2014. If not, no big deal, it's just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • Be consistent in whether La Nación and other publications are treated as works or publishers
  • Check formatting of quote marks within titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Done Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Support Comments

  • In the lede, don't provide the names of the judges, save them for the main body. Especially since they investigated in succession, not all three at once.
  • Oroño and Salta Streets in central Rosario add "near the intersection of ..."
  • Translate this: CEMAR (Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario
  • , the risk of structural failure was high. suggest rewording this to: "there was a high risk of structural failure"
  • What is an "employee's cabin"?
  • Front for Victory and Progressive, Civic and Social Front candidates Add "The" at the beginning of the sentence.
  • had cheap insurances delete the 's' at the end of insurance.
  • Are there any updated info on the status of the reconstruction, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. An "employee's cabin" is a cabin used by an employee for his work. I said "insurances" in plural because multiple buildings have multiple insurances; just because most of them are cheap does not mean that they all have a single common insurance. As for the reconstruction, I have mentioned before that I found no info. Looking a bit further, I found this blog, which of course I won't use in the article, but gives more light on that lack of info: the area has been cleared of debris, and no reconstruction has been announced because there isn't any reconstruction yet. Until further notice, it is basically a vacant lot with some employees working inside; now that the explosion is not in the ongoing news headlines it would have to be a very slow news days for any actual newspaper to detail the advances in the reconstruction. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Your changes generally look good. One of the peculiarities of English is that insurances is never used, the plural becomes "insurance policies". I didn't really expect any new info on the reconstruction, but I was wondering about the judicial side of things. You need to explain "employee's cabin" in the text because this is a term not used in the US. Is it a literal cabin or some sort of temporary structure erected by the workers to shelter them from the weather?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Insurances does occur in the plural in the sense used by Cambalachero. See the OED entry. But if preferred, "insurance policies" would be fine instead, as you say. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not technically wrong, but I've never seen it used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"Cabin" in this context is not about a small house or cottage, but a small room inside the building where the employee has the tools and machines he needs for his work. In Spanish it is a "cabina", and here it seems that the English language has a similar meaning (along with others), but I'm open to suggestions. The article has been twice in the guild of copy editors and in a GAN, and none voiced any concern about the word. Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I was the second of those copy editors and probably should have picked up on this. That's a strange use of cabin. I thought it meant an outdoor workmans' cabin, such as are found on building sites, assigned to Garcia. I didn't check that particular source, and I don't know much Spanish, but the source (FN20) calls it la cabina de gas and doesn't appear to say that it belonged to Garcia. It might be better to replace "the employee's cabin" with "the store room", or even "the store room where tools were kept". --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
How about "workroom"? In my experience apartment building often have a room dedicated to maintenance, although that's used by the building engineer/supervisor, not the gas company.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: does cabina mean a room where the work is done, or just where the tools/machinery are stored? (If the former, "workshop" would be better understood by a Brit, but I don't know about AmE.) --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Changed to "Workshop" Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support & Comments Very good article and detailed coverage of the event. I only have a couple of recommendations:

  • Could you please fix the opening sentence to match the standard in other WP articles? I am aware that other disaster articles use this style, including the FA Mt. Saint Helen, but it just seems very strange.
  • Please add a "See also" section to the article.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    • What do you believe should be in this see also section? Other gas leak explosions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @MarshalN20: please could you clarify what "standard in other WP articles" you're referring to? I think the sentence conforms rather well to MOS:BOLDTITLE; see for example the example of the 2011 Mississippi River floods there. Or did you mean something other than that? --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Stfg: Something along the lines of: "The 2013 Rosario gas explosion was..." (like in San Juanico disaster, or in most other articles in Wikipedia). The current format seems like a newspaper report.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I don't think that the name should be bolded because "2013 Rosario gas explosion" is not an actual name widely used by the press, but just a descriptive name created here in Wikipedia to talk about the event. As for a "See also", I don't think it would be appropiate to include explosions that took place 20 years before (and certainly not an explosion that was not an accident but a terrorist attack). And, fortunately, this explosion is a lone case, there have not been other similar accidents in Argentina recently (if there were such cases, I would list them). The articles of other related things, such as the elections, are already mentioned and linked within the article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was about to re-edit the response to Stfg. My compete suggestion was to write something like: "The Rosario gas explosion was a major man-made disaster that occurred on August 6, 2013, and affected a residential area of Rosario, the third-largest city in Argentina." It seems less like a news report, but I understand that the current sentence is in line with the MOS.
Another question I had was why the year (2013) was important to mention in the title? Have any other significant gas explosions taken place in Rosario?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:BOLDTITLE, links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. The rationale for this is that linking part or all of the bolded text changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The year is provided for context. One of the very first things that people will want to know in an article about an event is when did it happen. Even worldwide known events (such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) will mention that detail in the lead as soon as possible. Cambalachero (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note -- There's been little activity here for the past week and we don't have anything approaching consensus to promote. I will however give Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy a bit longer to return and let me know if their points have been satisfactorily actioned before looking at closing this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that I had already supported!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)

  • The mayor of Rosario - name?
  • The Center for Ambulatory Medical Specialties of Rosario (Spanish: Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario) controlled information about the dead and injured, - controlled? What does that mean?
  • Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, there was a high risk of structural failure.[13] - This sentence could be reworded to avoid passive voice. Although the explosion did not destroy the building, a high risk of structural failure remained. - or something along those lines
  • It was reported at the trial that the building had experienced several gas leaks before the explosion.[14] - Could be easily reworded to active voice
  • Judge Juan Carlos Curto ordered the arrest of Carlos Osvaldo García, an employee of the department responsible for gas service to the area,[16] during the night,[17] and García's assistant Pablo Miño surrendered to police.[18] - The placement of "during the night" is awkward.
  • Prosecutor Graciela Argüelles said that, according to the investigation, Litoral Gas ignored calls for help from García, who was not properly trained to manage such a situation. The judge said - Double use of said. Maybe a different verb?

More to come once these are resolved. Prose is in good shape. ceranthor 00:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
More Comments
  • was caused by a large gas leak; a nearby building collapsed, and others were at high risk of structural failure. - To avoid passive voice, this can be reworded to something like "a nearby building collapsed, putting others at high risk...".
  • Mónica Fein, mayor of Rosario, asked residents to avoid the area due to the risk that more buildings might collapse, and to ease the work of disaster management personnel; the streets were covered by broken glass from damaged buildings.[9] - No need for the semicolon, as these sentences should be separated.
  • A number of people were missing; some were found dead among the debris, while others were rescued.[5] - So much passive voice. Surely some of this can be rewritten in the active voice.
  • and that the liability of Litoral Gas had to be investigated as well. - Awkward and wordy. Can you rewrite this as something like "authorities should investigate Litoral Gas's liability as well"?
  • Vice Governor Jorge Henn rejected is as immoral,[31] - Think this is supposed to be "it". Not sure, though.
  • and the proposal was initially rejected by most of the families.[3 - most of the families also initially rejected the proposal.

More later. I'm a bit concerned with how much passive voice is used in this article. ceranthor 17:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I accept that we should avoid the passive where the active will serve, but I think you're overstating this and heading for difficulties. In your first bullet, you're changing the meaning: in the original, the nearby collapse and the others being in danger are distinct. Your revision implies that the collapse caused the danger to the others. In any case, others were at high risk of structural failure isn't passive. In the third bullet, the focus of attention is on the missing people, so I think that making them the subject of passive verbs is actually better than finding another subject for an active one. Some were found dead and some rescued, but we don't necessarily know who found/rescued them and we shouldn't invent a finder/rescuer. Likewise in your fourth bullet, you're inventing a subject (authorities) that we don't know is there. The topic is the potential liability of Litoral and the need to investigate it; who should investigate it is a different issue. Often, the purpose of the passive is to avoid inventing an artificial subject for an active verb, or even when the agent is known, to avoid putting emphasis on him/it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, Stfg, I've striked those comments, but the rest of my suggestions still stand. I have a few more comments to add here when I find the time, granted Cambalachero fixes the remaining ones. ceranthor 19:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ceranthor. Yes, I wasn't asking you to withdraw them all. (I agree with your last bullet, for example, as well as several others.) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No hard feelings, and I welcome the input. Thank you for correcting me when I was wrong. ceranthor 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Kangana Ranaut[edit]

Nominator(s): AB01 (talk), KRIMUK90  15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

After Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan, Kangana Ranaut is one such Bollywood actress who has helped push the boundary for a Hindi film heroine in a fiercely male-dominated industry. The article has been thoroughly researched and well-sourced and I look forward to a lot of constrictive comments. Cheers! KRIMUK90  15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Just one comment for the time-being:

  • There is a category named "Actresses in Tamil cinema" - is it really necessary? I mean, she has appeared in only one Tamil film, and is unlikely to appear in anymore. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
True. Since others like Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone don't have that category either. Removed AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Brief comment. I found that the high number of (often very short) quotations in the text made it difficult to read. I suggest more paraphrasing (perhaps target a 50% cut in the number of direct quotations); readers will be thankful and there'll be more of a chance of the article passing. Also, write out all contractions (e.g., "didn't" → "did not"). EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, I think AB01 I'M A POTATO 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment EddieHugh. A lot of the quotes have now been paraphrased. -- KRIMUK90  01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The rest of my comments:

  • The lead says, "She then played opposite Hrithik Roshan as a superwoman in the science fiction film Krrish 3 (2013)" - I think you mean that she "acted" opposite him. Also, the term "superwoman" sounds too colloquial, just like how a strong man is called "superman" even if he cannot fly or release heat vision. So can we say "mutant" instead? Because that is what the character is.
"Played opposite" is quite correct. Changed "superwoman" to "mutant". -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the URL's can be archived in order to avoid link rotting. The India Today links may very likely die, as Checklinks always tags them as "Soft 404".
Actually, that's a Checklinks error. The India Today links are the least likely to expire, as they have online articles dating back to 1998. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are some newspaper/website fields italicised and some not? Please maintain consistency.
All print sources are italicised, and online sources are not, per the formatting used in the other FAs. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Kaya, a shape-shifting mutant" - you can wikilink "shape-shifting" as it is not such a common term (I don't think many Indians know of the term, and they would refer to any Mystique-type of character as "form-changing").
Wikilinked shapeshifting. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The same paragraph reads, "The critic Sarita Tanwar reviewed" - for which newspaper/website?
Added. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote below for Dwai's comment, that there is a separate page for her filmography. And since her filmography isn't as large as Chopra's or SRK's, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting another table. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't review this FAC so deeply due to time constraints, but it does look very well written and all the statements are well sourced. Once my few comments have been addressed, this FAC has my "support". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Kailash. :) -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome Krimuk, and this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • She has an elder sister, Rangoli, who now works as her manager..." Remve "now", may use as of.
  • "her grandfather, was an IAS officer" "IAS" needs to be elaborated.
  • "Ranaut who had been observing the character from a distance played the part along with " Perhaps can remove "from a distance". Also, is this info at all needed? Seems trivial.
-->We think it's important since it outlines what led to her pursuing a full-time acting career (which is shown in the next sentence)
  • "A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film" The preceding sentence is on her male role. So, do you mean the audience response to her male role playing encouraged her to move to Mumbai (it's possible to interpret in that sense due to proximity of these two sentences)?
-->Basically, a positive reaction towards her overall performance
At present it reads, "During a screening, one of the male actors went missing; Ranaut who had been observing the character played the part along with her original role of a woman. A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film". So, the audience reaction to this particular performance (in which she played two characters, one male and one female) prompted her to relocate to Mumbai? If that is what the source says, then this sentences are perfect, no need to change. I thought good audience reception of all her performances during her theatre days prompted her move!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what the source says. She relocated because the audience appreciated her in the dual roles. :) -- KRIMUK90  16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "for a four-month acting course from Asha Chandra's drama school" "from" versus "in".
  • "Ranaut later said..." when did she say?
  • The long quotation "People in the industry treated me like I didn't deserve to be spoken ..." does not have any attribution: where/when did she say so?
  • "Ranaut found support in the actor Aditya Pancholi..." need a hint of timeline -- the year/ something like "at the begiining of her struggle".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Dwaipayanc. :) -- KRIMUK90  01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we generally avoiding table of filmography in actor articles? The Filmography, awards and nominations section in this article looks very short.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, since there is a separate article for her filmography and awards, and since her filmography isn't too large, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting new tables. What do you think> -- KRIMUK90  16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is no right or wrong way. Personally, I prefer the table available in the actor article (unless the table is huge in size). I like that because I don't have to navigate to another article to have an overall yet quick glimpse on the filmography. You don't need the awards table, of course. So, it's a matter of personal choice/preference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And that's why her most successful films are listed in the paragraph of this section. Anyway, I hope this doesn't affect the outcome of your review. :) -- KRIMUK90  02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All points were appropriately addressed/answered.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Redtigerxyz[edit]

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole article; but only parts. Pardon me, if some of the comments are already addressed in other parts of the article. Most of what I have read looks good.

  • "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents." seems UNDUE IMO, as it is not really relevant to her career
I think it's important to show how she rebelled against what her parents wanted her to do, and establish herself on her own. It also puts into context why she was estranged from her parents. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The doctor part really doesn't reflect the sentiment. You have say that something like "against her family's wishes," she joined Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that is said later. Initial career aspirations are mentioned in other FAs such as Priyanka Chopra and Rani Mukerji too. So why not here? -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, wasn't the intention to show that she is a rebel. That is not established. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but that is established much later. This one line just talks about what her initial career aspirations were, just like engineering and psychiatry were for Chopra. -- KRIMUK90  16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Does she talk about it much; besides that interview and wikipedia mirrors. WP:LEAD says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". Is this one of them?--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I tried. Can we please have some other users commenting on this? -- KRIMUK90  05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That point is like a one-sentence summary of the Early life and background section, which talks a lot about her growing up days, education and career aspirations. So, yeah..I feel this is an important point AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz: I still maintain that this part is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ranaut's off-screen life has been the subject of extensive tabloid reporting in India." Almost every heroine has this feature. Is really needed in the lead?
Since the personal life section describes several instances of how much her relationships were covered in the Indian media, I think we need atleast one sentence in the lead to say something about it. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, disagree. Look at Angelina Jolie FA for example. No mention in lead.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jolie's article states "...relationship notable for fervent media attention". As do other FA's like Deepika Padukone. So why not mention it here? -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Messed up in a hurry what I really wanted to say last time. There is no reporting of individual media focus. Also, the Ranaut media attention pales to the scale of media frenzy over Bradangelia or even to the desi Deepika-Ranbir-Mallya.... relationships.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. How about something like "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India". One line about this needs to be mentioned in the lead, don't you think? -- KRIMUK90  16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(undent) "extensive tabloid reporting" is an overstatement for Kangana whose coverage pales to the frenzy over the Kapoors, Bachchans, Deepika etc. "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India" is stating the obvious. Page 3 media works like that in Bollywood.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments from other users on this point too. -- KRIMUK90  05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess it would be ok to remove that statement, and instead add something about how she aspires to break away from stereotypical heroine roles and do more performance-oriented roles based on women empowerment (like in Vidya Balan's article) AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz:Okay, I have removed the sentence from the lead. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Seems like POV-pushing of Ranaut; : "In a 2011 interview, Ranaut said: "Today, I have everything..."
Well, it's a direct quote. I agree that the "everything" sounds very pompous of her, but the rest of the quote acts like an apt conclusion to all the fights she had with her parents. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Beg to differ. It sounds like "They hate me, but I the magnanimous one still love me". Even "although I do a lot for my family and friends today." is her POV. A neutral observer's view saying the same will be NPOV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hence, in quotations. It's her quote, so it will obviously be from her POV. -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, Krimuk that it would sound incomplete without that quote. However, I've added a bit about her reconciling with her parents. I'm thinking we don't need the quote anymore. What do you say? AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I still don't think the quote was not a case of POV-pushing, but anyway, we have removed it now Redtigerxyz. -- KRIMUK90  03:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ranaut has maintained a strong connection, and makes yearly visits to her hometown of Bhambla." Seems to be overstating the fact that she makes yearly visits.
Agreed. Removed. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Redtigerxyz. Do let me know if you disagree with me on the first three arguments. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Support I've given it a thorough read and copyedit and removed a few quotes. I'm happy that the article is a sound account of an actress who hasn't been around that long really. One thing though, why was it only the 2014 film which made her a leading actress of Hindi cinema? It does sound a bit OR, is it in the source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doctor. Much appreciated. :) Yup, this cited source says that Queen established her as a leading actress of Bollywood. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content. Daan0001 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this comment carries no weight as is -- clearly the article does exist, and objections based on content require explanation and/or examples to be considered actionable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! The user is clearly against the nominator/article. Going with the past FLC records, it would be clear that he is a fanatic. Vensatry (ping) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The FP[edit]

Nominator(s): Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about The FP, a very inexpensive, largely unknown film that is a personal favourite of mine. The film focuses on gangs that fight using a Dance Dance Revolution knock-off, so that should set the tone for you. I've been working on this article consistently since February, and I believe it has reached FA level. The article is well-sourced, featuring many direct interviews with the filmmakers and the featurettes/commentary from the film itself. The information included is all-encompassing, noting many opinions of both the filmmakers and their critics, as well as a large amount of facts about the film. Hopefully you think it's worthy of FA status as well! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Erik (addressed)[edit]