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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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



History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the history of KFC. Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Can anyone explain why this article didn't pass the last time? Given that explanation, we can evaluate to see if those concerns have been dealt with. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Stevietheman, User:Ceranthor had a few comments that I didn't have time to look into. but have since been addressed. Tom (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the island at the center of the attacks on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. I recently got stationed on Pearl Harbor and for the first two months here I was staying on this island at the Navy Lodge. I initially wrote Admiral Clarey Bridge which leads to this island. Then I started improving this article and I realized there was a lot of material that could be covered outside of the attacks themselves. I received help from User:Mareklug and User:Mark Miller and they should both receive credit if this is accepted.

This article has been peer reviewed and given an A-class review by the MilHist project. I am trying to get this accepted before Dec 7 so it can be featured on the main page on that day. I know it's a tight schedule and it's my fault for sitting on the A-class review for 3 months. I apologize. I hope ya'all can work with me on this one.v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Ooh, if you need it on the main page on December 7, it'll need to be accepted probably a couple of weeks before that, per the processing speed of WP:TFAR. I don't have time right this second (actually, I really need to be studying), but I'll try to start giving my opinions here later today, though I'm not a big MILHIST guy or World War II buff. Best of luck. Tezero (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Yeah, I gave Bencherlite a heads up a few months ago about what I was up to. I'm just hoping the stars align at this point. It's completely my fault for sitting on the ACR. Life had become pretty busy and I was trying to chip away at the ACR needs a few at a time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I have a GAN that's been on hold since, like, the start of August because I keep putting off working on it and don't have a whole lot of sources for things that the reviewer has decided are necessary to include. Actually, I should probably just request he fail it and thank him for his time until I can actually get it up to snuff, now that I think about it. Things happen. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, time to get down to business and defeat the Huns:

  • "with landfill from the dredging of Pearl Harbor." - a bit confusing
    • Can you tell me which part is confusing? Let me try to explain what that means: Pearl Harbor was originally called Pearl river. It was deep enough for the ships in the 1700s and 1800s to get through, but as the United States started to build battleships in the 1880s, it became necessary to deeper harbors. A underwater trench was dug (as seen in this map) to allow the ships to transverse the river up into the lochs. The east loch was also deepened to allow mooring within the loch and it was deepened around Ford Island, specifically, to allow ships to turn around and exit. Land that was dug up from under water was used to increase the size of Ford Island by nearly a full third.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done I also found out that land fill and landfill mean two different things. So I corrected inappropriate instances of that word.--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The organization of the lead baffles me. It's... mostly chronological, but with stuff like the 2011 designation as an endangered site thrown in at odd places. Mind explaining what you were going for, or doing a clearer, more consistent organization scheme?
    • I organized it chronologically with grouping of similar topics. So because I mentioned it becoming a national historic landmark in 1964, I also mentioned the historic endangered list in the same sentence even though it's 2011. If I did it completely chronological then I'd have to use simple sentences and someone cautioned me against that. I'm willing to go with whatever you suggest though.--v/r - TP 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The island has been featured in films such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor," - ditch the comma
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ford Island is in the center of the East Loch of Pearl Harbor" - I know, stupid American who doesn't know his own history or geography reporting in, but... Pearl Harbor has lochs? Can you give a very brief rundown in the article of Pearl Harbor's structure? I don't imagine most Americans know, especially without even giving a link to Pearl Harbor there.
    • No problemo. There is the East Loch, Middle Loch, and West Loch. Most of the active base is around the East Loch.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Erm... I mean, in the article. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Righteo, I gotcha. I was just sharing.--v/r - TP 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if Flora and fauna couldn't be expanded. I know nothing about the life forms in Pearl Harbor, other than that the humans there are probably either timid or tourists. Are any life forms typical of Pearl Harbor also found on Ford Island?
    • The island is quite barren since the Army took it over. Mostly pavement and building, grass and trees. I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up, but I really doubt it.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Minor note, but when discussing the name of the island you should probably throw a link to Hawaiian language somewhere.
OK, I think I have this figured out now. Originally there was some conflicting information about the interpretation or translation of the name and how to reference that. Reliable sources are firm on the interpretation but the direct translation and mention of the Hawaiian language is an important detail. No need to change any existing reference but simply add a small referenced line. I used both the online dictionary and a book source. For now I'll add both and we can trim off anything that doesn't work for FA. The translation is simply: "Moku (island, inlet) and 'ume (1- To draw, attract or entice. 2- Sexual game of the common people. Because opposite sexes are attracted to each other, the word ʻUme is used in the name ("kilu" is the game chiefs' would engage in). --Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Let me know if the addition needs more work.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't stand one-line paragraphs. Can you expand the middle one in Ancient Hawaiians or merge it somewhere?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider italicizing or double-quoting the various names used for the island when they're discussed as names, e.g. Rabbits Island, Moku'ume'ume.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "9 February 1818", "28 August 1865", etc. - pfft, you might as well just be burning an American flag, commie.
    • Yes check.svg Done I'm in the USAF and this is the date format we use in the military. It's habit.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "who believed that the land was fertile, sacred and could not be owned by anyone" - grammar; it should be "was fertile, was sacred, and could not be owned by anyone" or "was fertile, sacred, and unable to be owned by anyone".
  • The empty space in the table's a little strange. I'd prefer making it a closed-in space and simply nulling it out with an em-dash or coloring it grey.
    • Which table? Is it the "Army Air Force Aircraft at Luke Field" or "Ford Island Air Traffic Statistics"?--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • First one. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a few redlinks in the article. Yes, I know, this isn't a requirement, and I won't push it if you're not interested, but I think it'd look better if you either delinked them or redirected them somewhere.
    • (not the nom or a contributor, just another commenter) Is removing redlinks a common FAC suggestion? Protonk (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I could probably create a few stubs, no problem. I'll do that later today.--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "was headquarters of Patrol Wing Two" - shouldn't it be "was the headquarters"?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island" - I don't understand this section title. It might help if some of the words were de-capitalized.
    • NALF Ford Island was it's name. I could possibly cut out the "Ford Island" part of it and leave it as "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field". Would that help?--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I so want to chime in here with: X mark.svg Not done. I was taught by my English Composition teacher (who also read in Anglo-Saxon to us for extra fun) that if something is at first confusing but on inspection passes muster, it is fine. This really is the name, and it is fine. One might consider reusing that full name in text soon after the heading to reinforce, but absolutely, Tom, don't fix what ain't broke. Kind regards, --Mareklug talk 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
        • It could possibly be shortened to NALF Ford Island - that would be an appropriate abbreviation.--v/r - TP 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Two short paragraphs again at the beginning of Film and television. You could probably just merge them.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is "F" used as an index for the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" category? The page is already called "Ford Island".
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise with the "United States Naval Auxiliary Landing Fields" category.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's probably it for me; take a look at these when you have the time. Looks nice. Tezero (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; I still don't get that six-word capitalized section title, but whatever; I ain't gonna withhold support just for that. Tezero (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Support from Protonk[edit]

I'll have some specific comments later, but I'll broadly support this for FA. See my comments on the A-Class review for some color on the suggestions I've made so far. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I've made a few copy-edit so far. Struggling to find some more actionable suggestions. :) Protonk (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2003[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of "a man jumping in front of two boats" and "cleavers not spoons", I humbly submit to you this meagre offering. It seemed unlikely that anything would match the excitement of the 2002 race but this race took the proverbial biscuit. Dramaz beforehand with broken oars and wrists, and the closest finish in the long history of the event. The winning margin is estimated to have been approximately five hundredths of a second over the course of an 18-minute race. That's close. Anyway, as ever thanks for your time and energy should you feel the urge to review and comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Walther von Brauchitsch[edit]

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

After having worked on this article for almost a year, getting it to GA-status and starting a peer review, I believe it meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Image check - the first 3 images need a closer look or replacement:

Yes check.svg Done - JV
Yes check.svg Done - JV
Yes check.svg Done - JV
Thanks for your input, GermanJoe. - JV
All points addressed - status updated. Just a quick note, please don't use status templates like {{done}} - apparently they cause problems loading the huge summary listing at WP:FAC (see FAC-instructions). GermanJoe (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thank you. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Some perennial problems with the article. Most of the biography is sound but I've identified three things the need re-thinking and re-writing:

  • The assumption the French campaign was based upon Blitzkrieg
  • The statement the 600-strong Polish Air Force was destroyed within hours (its strength was double, it was never destroyed at all, and the Luftwaffe declared the air war won only on the 7th day
  • His resistance and skepticism about Sea Lion and Britain.

I can help modify these things. The first two points are factually incorrect without question. Corrections can be kept very brief if required. Dapi89 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dapi89, thank you for your comments. You are, however, wrong. I can assure you the French campaign was based on the theories of Blitzkrieg, absolutely. Guderian earned his reputation as "the father of German Blitzkrieg" after the extraordinary 75-mile dash from the Meuse river to the English channel, in which he also scored a ton of victories like battles of Peronne, Amiens, Abbeville, and Noyelles, all of which were based on Blitzkrieg. So no, you're wrong here. And regarding your last point, Brauchitsch was not skeptic about Sea Lion or against the invasion of Britain. Unless you find a ton of published, reliable sources which proves me wrong here, the article will stay at it is. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jonas, im not wrong. Not even close to being wrong. I'm aghast that you seem to think that blitzkrieg exists. Overwhelming academic consensus says no. I'm concerned at this level of ignorance in an article that wants to be featured. I can bring a dizzying number of sources to the table. And certainly better than The Times!!! Using that as a source is highly amusing. Prepare for an influx of heavy weight academic material - some of which you NEED to read. Btw, I have made a huge number of additions to the said article. You may not have realised that. So at the risk of sounding like a bond villain. ...It is you who is wrong Jonas! Stand by. Dapi89 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw, we havnt had occasion to collaborate before, and I'm not used to being asked for sources because I think most editors know they will follow. Anyway, I will implement them soon with the appropriate brevity. Dapi89 (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to collaborate with you if you think Blitzkrieg wasn't used in France. And I don't think you should edit the article either as your edits will be reverted and not considered fruitful. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonas, this is a good example of why I had recommended exposing the article at Military History A-class review prior to going to FAC. The term Blitzkrieg has many interpretations depending on context and point of view. I think what Dapi is referring to, please correct me if I am wrong, Blitzkrieg as an official military doctrine or concept is a historical myth. However, Blitzkrieg as an idea of a highly mobile mechanized force supported by close air support did exist. I think what the article needs to point out is how and in what context the term is being used. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
MisterBee1966, I think this discussion is turning into a strawman argument. What the article means when mentioning Blitzkrieg is, as you said, highly mobile mechanized force supported by close air support. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonas, don't ever revert someone on the grounds you intimate. You'll end up in trouble. There is a clear lack of knowledge here on your part. Mr Bee had cleared up one point - that blitzkrieg as a historical myth. What is referred to as blitzkrieg did not generate in the minds of the general staff until after June 1940: as Karl hienz Frieser acknowledged, it was a consequence of 1940 not an instigator of it. Like I said, I will bring in academic sources and they will replace the journalistic ones (non specialist ) that are in it's current state.

In future Jonas, have at least some understanding about what you write. I have no idea what you mean by strawman. It's like we're talking at cross purposes or maybe your English isn't up to standard. Anyway, the point is that as a more knowledgeable editor in this field I'm trying to help the article.....and as it happens , you. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pointless and insulting exposition argument. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonas, you're not making any sense.
It isn't insulting, its factual. What is insulting, is threatening to revert any edit I make and insist on a flawed, ill-throughout statement, sources by Time Magazine.
It is contemptible that you can't and won't understand what's being said. Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Dapi89, to put it nicely, why don't you shut your piehole. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Content issue[edit]

On an unrelated issue there is nothing pertaining to his fight with Hitler over the Halt Order. This must be included. Dapi89 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree. Will look for a source. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


I may not be an expert on Brauchitsch, but from the little I know and the sources I have available, I must conclude, that the main source, Hart 1944, is 'over-interpreted' in many cases; the only biography published so far, Jürgen Löffler 2001, was not consulted; and B.'s role in the Battle of Moscow, which is discussed in detail in 'Germany and the Second World War' volumer IV, available in English since 1998, was obviously not used in the writing of this article.

Apart from that, there are numerous omissions and inaccuracies:

  • Brauchitsch was not commissioned into the 3rd Guards Artillery, he requested a transfer from the 3rd Guards Grenadiers, his original regiment.
Will tweak this. - JV
  • He did not 'slowly work his way up through the ranks', he was promoted according to seniority. Incidentally, he was commissioned straight away after leaving the cadet institute, which gave him a head start.
I think depends on how you define "slowly worked his way up through the ranks", but will tweak it. - JV
  • B. was an officer of the general staff, serving in this capacity on the staff of numerous formations, but not with the German General Staff as such.
Matter of opinion, but will tweak it. - JV
  • He never borrowed money from Hitler. Hitler's role in B.'s divorce is a bit more complicated. Cf. Smelser, Syring (1995).
Hart 1944 and Jewish Virtual Library says otherwise. I also recall reading a book in which Keitel talks about this. - JV
  • If B. served 'primarily' as CinC, what other significant roles did he fulfil 'secondarily'?
He primarily served as CinC between 1938-41, after which he was sacked and transferred to the Führer reserve, from where he later consulted on military matters, but will tweak it to avoid confusion. - JV
  • The quote on Napoleon is not substantiated by the reference given.
Will re-read Hart and find the exact page. - JV
  • The Karstedt family hails from Brandenburg not Pomerania.
I guess that's true, but Elizabeth was a heiress of Pomerania. - JV
  • B. had three children with E., two sons, one daughter
True, will add a sentence or two about them. - JV
  • B.'s second wife's maiden name is Rüffer not Rueffer, she was a widow thus her surname was Schmidt when she married B.
The letters "ü" and "ø" are often written in English as "ue", but will tweak. - JV
Early life
  • B.'s father was also head of the Prussian Military Academy
The article already mentions his family was one of military traditions and Lichterfelde is not mentioned that often so didn't see the need for such an addition, but will add it now per your notice. - JV
  • B. was page to the Empress, thus his manners.
Will add a sentence or two. - JV
  • B. was promoted to First Lieutenant in 1909, he was not detached to the General Staff until 1912, which he joined in 1914.
Will tweak. - JV
  • It would be more interesting what positions he served in, rather what battles happened at the time. As a staff officer he was hardly 'in the thick of it'.
I strongly disagree. Battles are (in my opinion) more academically important. It's a matter of opinion, but since I am the overwhelming contributor to the article and responsible for the articles many expansions and improvements I will keep it as it is. And also, you could easily be "in the thick of it" as a staff officer. Maybe not as a soldier in the field, but as a staff officer, definitely. - JV
  • He also received the House Order of Hohenzollern, a more prestigious award than the Iron Cross.
True, will add a sentence or two. - JV
Weimar Republic
  • What sanctions would B. have had to fear? He was retained by the Reichswehr rather than discharged. Not uncommon for staff officers.
I disagree. I think's its irrelevant whether you use the words "discharged", "relieved", "sacked", "fired" or "sanctioned" as you ultimately being removed from service because of Versailles. - JV
  • B. was not 'chief of the 2nd Army District in Stettin', he was appointed General Staff Officer of said formation. This also means, he was not serving with the 'Truppenamt', which was located in Berlin.
Will tweak. - JV
  • 'chief of the regiment's battery section' - he was a simple battery commander in the 2nd (Prussian) Artillery Regiment
If you insist I can remove it. - JV
  • In 1925 B. did not remain in Berlin but was transferred to 6th (Prussian) Artillery Regiment in Münster. (The link is to the Irish province btw)
Will tweak. - JV
  • 'army education' would be the Army Training Department
In English-speaking countries, perhaps, but my understanding is that it was officially known as "Army Education Department" in Germany.
Nazi Germany
  • B. became commander of 1st Division in 1933, after having served as Inspector of Artillery since 1932.
  • The source given for the Koch-Brauchitsch relationship seems to be 'overinterpreted'
I disagree. - JV
  • B. was not nominated by the OKH as Fritsch's successor but by Blomberg, i.e. the Reichswehr Minister, or by Göring himself, depending on what sources one trusts to give the truth
After Fritsch's removal, Hitler wanted Reichenau to replace him, but the army felt he was too political, and therefore recommend Brauchitsch instead. - JV
  • Czechoslovakia was not annexed, Slovakia became an 'independent' state, while Bohemia and Moravia became a 'Protectorate'. What exactly was B.'s role in this?
Will tweak. - JV
  • Starts in November 1939, only referring to the Polish campaign later on.
I don't under this sentence? Could you reformulate? - JV
  • The lede states 'he played a key role in the Battle of France', whereas the main body of the article claims it was a chance meeting of Manstein and Hitler.
You misunderstand; the choice to accept Manstein's plan was sheer luck, but in the actual battle he played a key role against the British. Can expand this part if that is wished so as to avoid further misunderstandings. - JV
  • The reference to Lowry does not hold up, too.
Will find another source. - JV
  • The same seems to apply to Browning.
Browning is referenced twice in the article, both of which checks out fine to me? - JV
Will add links. - JV

Considering this, I ask myself how this article made it to GA status in the first place. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ÄDA - DÄP, for your time to look at this article. I have addressed most of your points but also dismissed, explained or disagreed on some. Once I have implemented or tweaked all these points, I believe the article meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
ÄDA - DÄP VA, I have a book source here which talks about Brauchitsch as a pageboy, but I'm uncertain where to put it. Any ideas?

Nativity (Christus)[edit]

Nominator(s): Victoria (tk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about 15th century Early Netherlandish painter Petrus Christus's painting the Nativity, which would I worked up to make Christmas scheduling easy of Bencherlite. It's had a peer review, and thanks to SlimVirgin, Johnbod and Belle for the helpful comments there. Also thanks to Ceoil and Kafka Liz for the copyedits. Victoria (tk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I read this through at peer review. It's beautifully written and a pleasure to read, it looks wonderful, and it seems comprehensive and well-sourced. It will make an excellent TFA for Christmas. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. The usual high standards here. Support. Ceoil (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the supports SV & Ceoil, and the nice comments. Victoria (tk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_(c._1460s)_detail.jpg, File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_detail.jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the catch! Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I am slightly confused over a couple of aspects:

  • Dates: The article begins: "The Nativity is an oil-on-wood panel painting by the Early Netherlandish painter Petrus Christus, completed sometime between the mid-1440s to mid-1450s" But the caption to the lead image reads: "Nativity, c. 1460s." Why the date discrepancy?
  • In the "Dating and condition" section there are two images. It is not clear what the one on the left is. It is captioned "Nativity, Petrus Christus, c. 1450", and the lower foreground features are similiar to those of the main image, but the upper foreground and background details are quite different. Is this an early draft, is it the underdrawing? Whatever it is, the relationship of this image to the completed panel needs to be clear in both text and caption.
  • The right-hand image caption doesn't tell us specifically what the image is. I assumed it was a detail taken from the panel before restoration and cleaning, since the colours are muted. However, if this is pre-restoration, why are the halo and the gold paten not shown? Again, I think further clarity in text and caption is needed if readers are not to become confused.
  • Hi Brian, it is slightly confusing. I've changed the date in the lead image; thanks for that catch.
  • The 1450 Nativity is a different painting. For the life of me I cannot find much more than what's there now in the sources, but will dig a bit more during the week.
  • File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is a crop and not a very good one because it's a screenprint from here. I might try to play with it a little more to try to improve, but the many iterations on the file give a sense of how often I've switched it around. That thing the infant is lying on is the paten; the halo is very faint (the gold rays around Mary's head).

On a different issue entirely, "Richter (1941)" does not seem to be defined in the sources list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the catch. I've added it. Victoria (tk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Adam Cuerden[edit]

Support, but it'd be nice to get some better details. If you need help with that, poke me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

    • All the gallery images are from Web Gallery of Art, including File:Petrus christus, natività di washington 04.jpg.
    • File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is a screen print of the painting before restoration, from a book published by the Met for the 1994 exhibition. Not sure where we can find a better source of the pre-restoration condition. G-books doesn't allow screen capture.
    • File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_(c._1460s)_detail.jpg is a screenprint from the same book (pages noted on the source in the file). I can't zoom in far enough on our current lead image to get that much detail - again this is a photograph taken by the Met curators/conservators. I like the image too because it shows the Craquelure. If we others agree it's substandard, I'll see what I can do.
    • Do you mean better details in the text or in the images? Sorry, not quite following that comment. Thanks, btw for the image review and the support. Victoria (tk) 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Adding re POTD: I got pinged from Crisco's page on the conversation re Christmas scheduling. I'm not fussed when this runs - if you guys want the image to run on Christmas, then the article probably shouldn't. I've clarified above that I've not written this because I want to see an article I've written on the Main page on Christmas, but to make the scheduling easy. I'll drop a note on Bencherlite's page too, and let you all work out which (the article or the pic) will run. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • We might well go Christmas truce for POTD this year, and this as TFA, then the image next year or so. That's why I like nominating images from FAs for POTD - a second day on the main page for high-quality content is always nice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • More on-topic, though - I'd suggest explicitly saying the detail images are pre-restoration. That's a valuable second view of the work as it was, but it's not clear that's what's happening at present. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
          • All the details are post-restoration. File:Petrus Christus Nativity (c. 1460s) detail.jpg is the frontispiece of a book published in 1994 for a 1994 Christus exhibition at the Met; the painting underwent restoration before the exhibition and there's no way of knowing whether that image was taken before or after the restoration. We do know that File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is pre-restoration because it shows the details removed in the restoration. I've found another version of that which might be clearer and will upload in the next day or so. Victoria (tk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Sounds good. And sorry to be difficult. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pah Wongso was a bit of an oddball, in many ways rather similar to myself. Although of ethnic European (Dutch, rather) heritage, he was very close with the indigenous and ethnic Chinese communities in the Indies and later Indonesia, and married an ethnic Chinese woman. His work promoting education for poor youth and raising funds to help war-torn China in 1938 led him to have great popularity within the Chinese diaspora community, and as such the Chinese-owned Star Film produced two films starring him. This article is about the first of these, Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman, and features (among other things) perhaps the most detailed plot synopsis of the film published since the 1940s. I hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Too few nitpicks in this very readable article to defer support, just three comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Batavia—better linked at first occurrence rather than in "Production"
  • silat—not italicised in its own article, although personally I wouldn't call it an English word
  • See my response regarding this issue in Si Ronda, here. In short, English sources seem to italicise silat on first use like this or italicise it throughout. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • only successful because of Wijnhamer's existing fame—"existing" is redundant
  • Meant to emphasise that this was the popularity/fame he had as a philanthropist before the film (his court trial was reported in both Sumatra and Java, which is interesting since it was a fairly small charge, and he knocked the sentence down to a 25-cent fine). Tried trimming it anyways, to see how it works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Comment Leaning support. A few comments.

  • The phrase "returns his affections" or a variant is used twice. Given that it is rather old-fashioned, I'd cut it to once. "loves him in return" would be an example.
  • "Hoping to eliminate any competition" I don't see how "any" is justified, as it would not deter a third suitor except possibly through intimidation. Suggest change "any" to "his" ("rival" might be considered an alternative for competition)
  • Done. I'd also considered "the", but I've gone with "his" here. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • "Wisnoe is arrested". A short sentence, easily mergeable into either the one preceding or following.
  • "a battle to the death". I assume I know who won, but perhaps spell it out. I imagine he also wins Siti's hand?
  • "At the time, the Hollywood characters of Charlie Chan and Mr. Moto were popular in the Indies, as were imported detective films; however, no films in that genre had yet been produced domestically" I have several questions about this passage. First, are you considering the Chan/Moto style of film as not a detective series? In which case, it should be "genres". Or if you are considering it as such, I'd put an "other" before "imported". The sentence may benefit from a rewrite in any case. I'd also like to know, if known, why they were successful, given their Asian stereotyping, which in the case of Chan at least must have been clear to an ethnic Chinese audience. Even given that people were less hypersensitive about such things in that era, it strikes me as odd. If known, can a brief explanation be inserted as to why they were successful (which also lets the reader decide to what extent Pah Wong followed that formula for success)?
    • Let me check to see if the reason for these characters' popularity is in my sources. Added "in general" to indicate that these are over and above Mr. Moto and Chan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing. I checked Biran, and S' article in Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film, as well as the biography of Djamaluddin Malik. None of them give a reason, although S notes that Sherlock Holmes, Raffles (Lord Lister), and Nick Carter (all Caucasian) had been popular some time before that. I can think of several possible reasons, but including them would be OR. There does not seem to be anything on Jstor (the only article which refers Pah Wongso is already cited here), and I have not found anything on Google either. Archived newspapers from the Indies don't give a reason, but I note that this popularity extended to Dutch-language comics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " the Red Cross' aid" possibly simplify to "Red Cross aid" without the "the".
  • " to act as criminals" there's a bit of a double entendre here that I'm sure you don't want. Suggest "appear" for "act".
  • Perform as, perhaps, to avoid repeating "appear" (which is used in the next sentence)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Release etc.
it was also screened internationally, including in China, Singapore and British Malaya" a bit clunky. Cannot the bit about "internationally" be deleted? It's surely implied by the next words. Unless you are hinting there may have been other countries it was screened in as well.
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. One comment left to deal with; I'll see what I can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've tried addressing that last comment, but no luck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. I might quibble that two of the three have doubled Licensing sections, but since the content is right that doesn't really matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Nikki, fixed the double headers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. One minor tweak made, and one question: why does explanatory note b. carry the citation as (Barnard 2010, p. 65), rather than in the short form? - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • As in my previous nominations, footnotes use Harv rather than SFN because it allows for users to reach the original citation in the same number of clicks (rather than using SFN, forcing another two more clicks). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Another high-quality piece of work, up to the usual standards. Just a few quibbles then I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


  • "it followed the social worker Pah Wongso as he investigated a murder and cleared his protégé's name.": Maybe "it followed the social worker Pah Wongso as he investigated a murder to clear his protégé's name."? Not sure it’s much better, though.
  • Still trims characters, so sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The first of its genre to be produced in the Indies": Perhaps "The first film of its genre…"?
  • Alright. I liked it implicit, but I agree that it could be confusing for some readers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Upon its release in April 1941, it received popular acclaim but mixed critical reception": Maybe better as "Released in April 1941 to popular acclaim, it had a mixed critical reception"?
  • Much simpler. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "A sequel to this possibly lost film": I think a touch more is needed about it possibly being lost. Something as simple as "The film is possibly lost" would do to explain this to the unfamiliar.


  • "Pah Wongso is a nut seller, social worker, and schoolmaster living in Batavia and taking care of the local poor.": Maybe "who takes care of the local poor"?
  • "Wisnoe saves the life of a young woman named Siti when she is almost hit by a carriage": Something doesn’t quite work here. It makes the life-saving and the carriage-hitting almost seem unconnected, so it may be better to say how he saves her if we know.
  • None of the plot summaries I could find have it. I expect that he pulls her aside, but the most detailed review I found (on the talk page) doesn't say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "stand out among his fellow employees": Better as "Stand out from his fellow employees"?
  • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Are both "however"s needed in this section?
  • The second one's been trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


  • "a studio which Jo and Cho' had established together in Prinsenland"
  • "This led Jo to direct a detective film": Is "direct" the right word here?

Release and reception

  • "a reviewer praised the film for keeping with Hollywood's quality criteria": This sounds a bit clunky.
  • "The critic and filmwriter Saeroen expressed concern that the film's success was not because of its quality, and opining that it was only successful because of Wijnhamer's fame": I think this should be "opined" here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: My minor concerns having been addressed, I'm more than happy to support. This easily meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Chanchu[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a powerful typhoon in 2006. Not so long ago that it's forgotten in meteorology circles, but not so recent that its legacy can't be properly assessed. It was the first of several powerful, deadly storms in that year. The article, I am sure, is a better account on the storm than anywhere else online, which is my main personal criteria for nominating something for FAC. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • The caption given for File:Affected_Philippine_provinces_by_typhoon_Chanchu_2006.PNG doesn't seem to make sense as written
  • File:Typhoon_Chanchu16-05-06.jpg, File:Typhoon_Chanchu_17_may_2006_0315Z.jpg: source link returns error message
  • File:Affected_Philippine_provinces_by_typhoon_Chanchu_2006.PNG: sources for base map and data shown?
  • File:Typhoon_Pearl_in_Shantou.jpg: that summary seems a little sketchy...Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian raven[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a bird I see most every got a good going-over at GAN and I am feeling pretty happy with it. I reckon any fixes will take less than seven days and promise to fix issues pronto. Have at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • blamed of killing lambs—blamed for?
oops, changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • the nest a bowl-shaped structure of sticks—missing word "is"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The location that the type specimen was collected is not recorded—missing words "in which"
hmm, no but agree is ungainly. changed to "where" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • He named this the crow and C. australis (as Corone australis) the raven.—reads strangely, quote marks round names perhaps
rejigged it a bit as is tricky. added quotes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely. —"became" rather than "was" if I'm reading this correctly
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the eastern diverged into nomadic little ravens and, in forested refuges, forest ravens —missing word after "eastern"?
added a noun Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ornithologist Ian Rowley suggested the western populations may be older in origin as they lack the vigour of the eastern.[5]—How do you measure vigour, and why does it correlate with age of populations. Reads like something from 1870 rather than 1970
I have rejigged it some. Rowley said it - who knows, maybe he was working backwards after noting the western one has affinities with the little/forest raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • galahs and starlings—links to species, and binomials since you have done so for other birds
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the logic behind binomials for birds and ticks, but not red fox, yabbie or Christmas beetle
oops, oversight. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Corvus_coronoides_map.jpg: source for base map and data used? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The base map is File:World map.jpg. I will get a page number for data shortly source for map range added now to image file too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Criscraven

Once upon a noonday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of animal lore—
I thought of the species, of Vigors and Horsfield, and was rearing
The subject had been "the two subspecies" the sentence before
A shift in subject it was, from the sentence before
Only this and nothing more
Onward I trekked through my page and a half of taxonomical flair
And across Parramatta district did I stumble, then implore
This great name could surely be linked, if you dare
To Electoral district of Parramatta, and its lore
And "Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied", the lore
Unclear for now, and evermore
Upon this statement I stumbled, of ravens of intermediate features
And wondered, if in western ravens interbreeding did occur
I tripped upon the mulga-eucalypt boundary line, and in tears
I called for information, for data, for more, more, more!
Knowing so little, I can only beg for a redlink or more
So let us see it, I must implore.

To be continued... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Electoral
district of Parramatta
is political
Parramatta is
more faithful to the meaning
so I used instead
"the two subspecies"
has been shifted so it sits
more neatly in lead
no information
on hybridization could
I find - so unchanged
an explanation
for Corvus australis I
added as footnote
a redlink added
for mulga-eucalypt line
article to-be

There....six haikus....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it about the end of October? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
heh...not sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
comments I have read
agree with them all, I do
let me continue
The night now young, I continue on, moving forth 3 cm
Yet the loss of inches that I face ... Despair to the core!
I dig into this animal lore, and still my mind wanders
Questing for a link to Brisbane, a city I admit I adore
Though Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, and Adeleide I adore
No standardized linking is something I so deplore
Confusion strikes me, as I read of spiders, caterpillars, and friends
Which of our many-legged fiends are eaten by ravens on the soar
And which, at the beaks of the crying young, meet their ends
And must we again say it is not feet that do their chore
Of feeling and grasping and turning, all the bill's chore
This repeated repetition repeatedly leaves my eyes sore
As the evening grows dark, I must admit that I grow leery
Not wanting to push too hard, should I be shown the door
Dare I say that two sections are too short and bleary
Lead of Crow, trickster of old, but no examples of folklore?
And of the European and immigrant Australian folklore
Are there not films, or legends, or tales of yore?
Quoth the Crisraven
Forever sore — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I got them all done
but folkloric references
are non-specific

(damn...can't fit into haiku...problem is "crow/trickster" stories are often general for corvids.....will have another look.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Worry not, oh Cas
Question not specific birds
But specific tales — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I.e. examples of folklore stories would be interesting; don't just say its a trickster, show it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Will add comments as I read along. Feels a bit anticlimactic commenting after the above, like being scheduled to play a concert after Led Zeppelin. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I think all bird article should have a photo of how the animal looks in flight (when available, of course). Could only find this for the species here:[1]
added it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Potentially interesting free Flickr images (article feels a bit empty): Individual harassing a rainbow lorikeet:[2] Individuals foraging on garbage (with an ibis in background?):[3] Some kind of social activity (caption says two adults with juveniles):[4] Individual with fish head:[5] Individual taking road kill (a Vanellus chick):[6]
hmm, need to think on these. none are as exciting as some others I've seen. I could also take my camera to work and see as ravens are everywhere (as are ibises and silver gulls, makes for some potential interesting pecking order type photos) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, they're not great as photos, but they do show some interesting behaviour not depicted in the article. The one with the parrot I think is quite interesting, and showing them with garbage would make sense under human relations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "John Gould noted a single species of corvid in Australia, Corvus australis". Is this a synonym of something? Same with Corone australis. Neither redirect to anything...
I tweaked it to see if it makes it clearer. Essentially he went with precedence using the oldest available name, which was Corvus australis Gmelin 1788 - which was listed as from Tonga but was from Tasmania (note this is actually the forest raven, which was only recognised in the 1960s.) Neither links to anything as neither is a recognised name and there are other links around to forest raven and I didn't want to labour it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The above mentioned names should probably also be listed under synonyms in the taxobox, though they were preoccupied.
I added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "after declaring Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied" Preoccupied by what species? I see it is in a note, but would be nice to see in the article, by just adding "by the black nunbird".
I de-footnoted it as on reading it again think it flows better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Any reason why marianae was erected, when coronoides was already available as replacement name?
Mathews' egotism? Mathews was a heavy splitter, so has described many subspecies now not recognised - this was a case over oversplitting corvids Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, could the sentence about australis being preoccupied be moved up to where australis is discussed? Now it seems a bit disjointed.
These can be a real headache. In the past with complex naming situations like this, I have been told it makes most sense if listed chronologically. The final australis ruling was much later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the story behind the affinis and difficilis synonyms? Seems like an oversight, when other synonyms are treated in some detail.
Added material on difficilis now.Looking for other. Found initial entry in German.................. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although called a raven" Maybe it should be noted that the words raven and crow have little taxonomic meaning? Now readers could be led to believe that the species is somehow "misnamed" as a raven, as it is related to species called "crows", even though it just means a big member of Corvus...
good point...I just removed "although". Will look for a sentence on the interchangeability of crow/raven Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the sentence does not explain why it starts with "although". Two other ravens are listed with the crows.
agreed - just removed "although" and rejigged it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Rowley noted that the western ravens had features intermediate between Australian and little ravens." A bit unclear, the western ravens are Australian ravens as well, so why is the eastern raven only named as such, and not as "eastern"?
first "western" is ancestral, so left as western, second is western ssp. Rewrote second bit to clarify. I was being a bit sloppy there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Since so many different "ravens" are mentioned in that paragraph, I think it would be clearer if you added "Australian" after each time eastern or western is mentioned.
enough now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do the subspecies have common names?
Sort of/not really. They are generally just known as "Australian raven" everywhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to note which subspecies are shown in the included photos?
all are eastern subspecies apart from a single photo from Perth - I did wonder about adding but mused it might look a little repetitive. I thought adding locale would be helpful.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the sections about evolution and genetic affinities should have an "evolution" subheading under taxonomy? It's quite a chunk...
Tempted to...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Anything on when corvids entered Australia, and when this species diverged?
Aaah yes, the paper has it :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "the feet large and well developed" What does "well developed" mean here?
the claws are described as "powerful" in the source, so maybe "strong" is better...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "while the other four species have" I would add "of Australian corvids" the first time "four other species" are mentioned, for clarity.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Torresian crow is linked to a second time under distribution. Should it be?
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The video seems little relevant to the section it is next to.
been scratching my head 'bout that nice to have a video...but the bird isn't doing anything specific.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "that was banded and recovered 12 years and 5 months later" Live or dead?
alive! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "and so trees taller than surrounding trees are selected." Isn't either and or so redunda
reworded to "tall or emergent trees" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's about it from me, looks good. A bit to pass the time with until next reviewer shows up... FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Lithistman[edit]

While I prefer the form and structure of the "old days", when a reference wasn't breaking up the prose every sentence, I really found this article quite a pleasure. The image placement works very well, the prose is sound, and the content interesting. I love reading featured articles (and, in this case, featured article candidates) on such lesser-known topics. Given all this, and the improvements that have been made to an already well-crafted article based on Jimfbleak's suggestions above, I support making Australian raven a featured article. LHMask me a question 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Masked shrike[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This pretty little bird specialises in impaling its prey on thorns or barbed wire, and featured in The Great Escape. What's not to like? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Media check - all OK (CC)

  • all images and soundfile have sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Map has source information for content verification - OK.
  • tweaked a caption for clarity and changed the "Juvenile" image information following your move. GermanJoe (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Joe Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - article appears to be comprehensive, well-written and -referenced. Some minor comments:

  • I am not a topic expert (disclaimer on more complex details).
  • Publisher location can usually be omitted, when it's a part of the publisher name (f.e. "Berlin: Zoologisches Museum in Berlin." or "Oxford:Oxford University"). Or skip the publisher location altogether as optional info.
  • I don't see the usage for "Cuvier" (it's quite aged too). Move to Further reading?
  • Lichtenstein is also an old source, but only used as uncontroversial list record. Should be OK.
  • Assuming the article uses summary references for multiple sentences (?), referencing looks good.

(I like File:Maskedshrikeinhand.JPG: such a cute, adorable little thing. So innocent ...) GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I've removed Cuvier, left over from an earlier draft. I'm aware that there are options with publishers, but it's easier for me to stick with the belt and braces I always use, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This short article is to the usual high standard. The available information is obviously limited; Harris & Franklin start one section with "not well known" two others with "Little known". GermanJoe has picked up a couple of my meagre list of nit-picks.

  • tomial teeth - needs a link - there is a wiki page for tomium. Has a bird 1 or 2 or just a tomium? Snippet view of the cited source Lefranc & Worfolk indicates p23 rather than p22.
  • added teeth to description section, clarified number, fixed ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "about 353,000 km2 (136,294 sq mi)" This needs to be rounded: 136,000 sq mi.
  • Yes, I'd linked the other BB refs, but missed this one, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "and a ring of brown markings at the wide end": from the photo the ring seems to be around the centre.
  • I've removed location since the image contradicts the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Harris & Franklin (p180) claim the bird is monogamous - but do they really know? They also state that for the second clutch the birds demolish the first nest to build new one. Aa77zz (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Monogamy is the general rule with shrikes, (Harris and Franklin p.16.), and even in 2000 it was probably well known for this species, which occurs in reasonably open habitats in Europe. It would be surprising if Nikolov had missed polygyny in his detailed study of breeding behaviour, so I don't see any reason to doubt this. Added demolition Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for review and suggested improvements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article summarises all the available information and the sources are all of high quality.
Support - nicely done. But why this species? Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I saw the Fife bird, the first for Britain, and recently had a run out to Yorkshire, taking in the masked shrike at Spurn, the third for Britain, as well as some other migrants. I've got Harris & Franklin, but had never done a shrike FA, and I like Donald Pleasance. I might do another old building next for a change, perhaps the local church or ruined castle. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Must be Corvoidea month at FAC...anyway, some comments...

I reckon it'd flow better/be more engaging if Lichtenstein and Temminck had their first names and descriptors at first mention.
Are you sure "the typical shrikes" needs quotation marks? Looks a bit odd - alternately just around the "typical"?

Nothing else is jumping out at me - will take another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far, Cas, I've implemented all your suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. can't see any specific clangers outstanding......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and well-referenced article. --Carioca (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for kind words and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, you may want to consider trimming your lead.
  • Trimmed a bit and condensed to two paragraphs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Why are you not linking countries but linking continents? One would think the reverse would be better
  • Link to "Africa" left over from the original version removed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • a practice that has led to "butcher-bird" as a description of many shrikes. - feels awkward — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • removed as part of the lead trimming since it's mentioned elsewhere anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review and comments. I hope you noticed the film section, although sadly it wasn't an Indonesian release :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It only occupies the high exposed branches favoured by other shrikes at the start of the breeding season, - I read this at first as the other shrikes favouring the branches at the start of the mating season, rather than the masked shrikes favouring these branches at the start of their breeding season. Perhaps a way to rework?
  • a light flight - what is a light flight?
  • It's a fairly standard term, for example to contrast the easy flight of, say, a swallow with the more laboured heavy progress of a woodpecker. Rephrased anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • a background or grey, cream or yellow, diffuse grey blotches - a background or grey - is this correct? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I must have read that dozens of times without it registering, fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - Very good work. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the last of the US Highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to come to FAC. It runs in the rural western UP, and it is the site of an alleged apparition according to local folklore. While it is not that long compared to other highways in Michigan, the resulting article is a good compact read. Imzadi 1979  20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this at ACR, where I only had a few minor concerns, and feel that this is yet another Michigan road article that meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well-sourced and it meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (1 question)

  • File:U.S._Route_45_in_Michigan_map.svg - (replaced) Source data appears to be from the Michigan Geographic Framework, but I am not completely sure. I noticed, that you asked for the data source during the article's ACR - did you get any information about it? (uploader has not been active lately).
  • Aside from this point all images are CC and have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Fredddie created a new map in a style that will match the other maps in other Michigan highway articles, File:US 45 MI map.svg. In doing so, he noted all of the GIS sources used. That will resolve the issue with the other map. Imzadi 1979  07:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK great. Thanks to both of you for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)[edit]

Nominator(s): JJARichardson (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC), User:Midnightblueowl.

Article about an American rocket scientist who is both recognized as a pioneer in 20th century engineering an an icon of modern occultism. The recommendations of the first FA review have been followed rigorously. We have expanded the article's reference body (including academic sources) to avoid over reliance on the Carter and Pendle sources and written more detailed descriptions of the scientific aspect of the subject's career. A copyedit by User:Chaosdruid has also significantly improved and provided a firm grounding for the clarity of its prose. I believe that this article now meets the FA standard. JJARichardson (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per my review at the first nomination. It appears to have gotten even better since. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note Since this review was opened I have expanded the text using two more references: this article on Parsons' scientific achievements and this article on he and Cameron's association to Kenneth Anger. JJARichardson (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent prose, it is well-referenced and meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Usually it isn't necessary to include "(pictured)" in the caption
  • File:Parsons_Kynette.jpg: why the EU template for a US image? Also, what steps have you taken to determine whether the original publication included a copyright notice? Same for File:1952_0618_parsons.jpg
  • File:Marjorie_Cameron.jpg: source and licensing given are questionable. Getty Center attributes this image to the Cameron Parsons Foundation; it seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder, and unlikelier still that the image was their original creation. I have flagged this image on Commons for permissions issues, but if you have any more information about earlier publication that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the captions and deleted the problematic images outright. I think the article's formatting looks better without them. JJARichardson (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for FAC because it recently met the MILHIST A-Class criteria, and I believe meets the FA criteria. It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Independent_State_Of_Croatia_1941_Locator_Map.png: what source was used to create this map? Same with File:NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatskaDistricts.png, and the other two maps are sourced to the first one
    • Hi Nikki, I think the maps are sorted now. Can you have a look? XrysD has provided the source info used to create the maps. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yep, those are fine now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Serbian_family_1941.jpg: direct image link is dead, and on what basis does the museum say this is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki. The map(s) I'm following up with the creator on Commons. I've fixed the dead link on the family file, but all it says is that it is PD. The USHMM's generic copyright information is here. What do you think? On top of that, I think it would be a reasonable assumption that it would be PD-Yugoslavia/PD-SerbiaGov because Belgrade, Serbia is where the Museum is located. The former Museum of the Revolution and Nationalities of Yugoslavia has been absorbed by the Museum of Yugoslav History.
I'm not sure I follow your argument - the Museum of Yugoslav History may hold the picture (and they might have more specific information on its original source and copyright status), but they are likely not the copyright holder, and without further information I don't know that we can conclude that this is a government work either (SerbiaGov is more limited than USGov). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, I've removed it. If I add anything in place of it, I'll run it past you first. Thanks for the image review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Léal Souvenir[edit]

Nominators: Ceoil, Kafka Liz 23:128, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most penetrating and careful represntations of a late medieval prole, even one so seemingly highly placed. Jan van Eyck signed and datd this oil on oak in 1432, leading the way for secular portraiture across centuries. But even this is to undersell the painting; there is a lot more bubbling underneeth the surface, given the apparent empathy in this man's expressive face. Co-nom with Kafka Liz who knows things about ancient languages and symbols I dont. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Tombstone_of_C._Vetienus_Urbiqus.jpg: since this is a 3D work, the photographer also holds a copyright - what is the licensing status of the photo?
  • Unknon photographer, unknown date. We might have to loose this, looking for alternatives. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Portrait_of_Baudouin_de_Lannoy_c1435.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:DufayBinchois.jpg and its sources File:Guillaume_Dufay.jpg and File:Binchois2.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Those aren't the sources for DufayBinchois.jpg. Two images that only show small parts of the image that they are claimed to be sources for can't, in fact, be the source. Where's the rest of the image come from? For that matter, they don't look much like the relevant bits of DufayBinchois. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: Per WP:LEAD, 4 paragraphs is a bit much. It takes up about 22% of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, why not use File:Jan van Eyck 092 (big).jpg? This appears to be the version on the National Gallery's website. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've chopped the lead somewhat, and replaced the lead image with the NG version, which, yes has better colourisation. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Sorry to butt in, I didn't see Nikki and Crisco already doing the image review. One more point though: File:Follower of Jan van Eyck Marco Barbarigo.jpg is obviously "PD-art|PD-old-100", but still needs some source information (ideally a link, or a brief description of the file origin). GermanJoe (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi GermanJoe, good catch. Added that now. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose comments (Crisco 1492)

  • The stone parapet contains three separate layers of inscriptions, each painted in an illusionistic manner to give the impression that they had been chiseled into stone. - Avoid repeating "stone"?
  • letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory) - letters or words?
  • Apart from the dual portraits of the donors in his Ghent Altarpiece which were probably completed in 1431 or in the early months of the following year - source?
  • 8mm - worth using a convert template?
  • The oak panel consists of one board, vertical in grain and about 8mm thick. It is tightly cut at the edges of the paint surface, while at some point the support was cut in eight pieces. - didn't you just say this in the preceding paragraph?
  • Its - Your previous subject was "Infrared photography", which I doubt is the "its" you mean
  • original colour hard to read - is "read" the best term here?
  • Standardise whether you put periods after the c in circa (compare text and caption)
  • Dab links: canon, Lucchese
  • The first was on copper, an exact replica or original was found by Eastlake in the collection of the Lochis family of Bergamo in Italy. - not sure what you're saying here
  • over two horizontal - two horizontal whats?
  • During the 19th century it appears in the collection of the Scottish landscape painter Karl Ross; there are records of a sale from him in 1857. - shouldn't this be in the second paragraph of this section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dup links: Erwin Panofsky, parapet, Erwin Panofsky, Bergamo, and Turin
sound Crisco, working, slowly through these. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment and image review by Adam Cuerden[edit]

This badly needs a proofreading. I've just caught two very big typos in the handling of the Greek ( ) , which weren't even consistent [Timotheus in first sentence, the theta appeared in a different transcription. Perhaps it's just the Greek, but it's not a good sign. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Other issues: "The middle inscription contains the letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory)," - Technically, it says "LEAL SOVVENIR" - I'd give the actual text, THEN convert to standard lettering. Also, what language is it? Latin? If it's Latin, where's the é coming from?

As for the images:

Otherwise, the images are fine. Oppose for the moment - we need to fix up that DufayBinchois image, and I'd like to know what's going on with the inconsistencies, and think knowing the language of the title matters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

all noted, and thinking. It's worth saying that the sources contradict each other, with Campbell IMO the most authorative and he does speak in meta at times, ie gives an overview, with refutations. The difficulty is that van eyck did not have a command of the languages, and made errors, which we had reproduced, but you 'copy edited'. Ceoil (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I looked at the image. That's clearly a theta, not an O on the artwork. "TγΜ.ωΟΕΟς" is patently wrong. I could understand discussion about the Sigma at the end, as it's weirdly shaped on the artwork, but if we're going to pretend an omnicron translates as th, but isn't a theta, and that, of two completely different figures on the artwork, both the theta and the omnicron are omnicrons, that's just patently wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
actually we are pretending nothing, just reading, interpreting and thinking. If you want to be cute I will ignore you from now and carry on. You can either help and be construive or be defensive and aggressive. Don't really care, because I hadn't asked you a question. No to what. [User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
your comments, position, refractoring and temperament is noted, but this is not a simple matter, and is being addressed, but I hope not within the glare of such an aggressive reviewer. Noted adam, now get lost, and I will post back when I am happy that this is resolved. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, what the hell brought that on? If you're so sensitive that simply pointing out obvious-to-those-who-have-learnt-the-language errors in transcription of Byzantine Greek causes you to tell the reviewer to "get bent", "Get a grip", and even an attempted outing that would probably have worked better if everyone and their brother didn't know I used to edit under a pseudonym, one has to ask how you expect to get through an FAC. We may as well close this, because the nominator clearly isn't interested in dealing with the problems. There's quite a few issues in this article's handling of foreign languages, such as "It reads "LÉAL SOVVENIR" (Loyal Remembrance, or Faithful Souvenir)" - well, no, it doesn't. there isn't an accent mark on the painting. You can't state things are on the painting that quite simply aren't there, but when such things are pointed out, you're throwing a fit, and devolving into insulting the reviewer for no apparent reason. If you can't handle polite criticism, you shouldn't be here. I'm not going to drop the oppose, because the problems still haven't been dealt with; but I'm washing my hands of this article, as I don't want to deal with the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Adam Cuerden, about the lettering: I think this file (the first page is visible) gives a good sense of how very difficult it is to write about Jan van Eyck's inscriptions. Suggest giving the nominators a chance to re-read the sources and sort it out. It's never easy with JvE (I looked at a few sources yesterday and they were all contradictory) - there isn't a deadline. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks Victoria. Guys, please just try to see the other's perspective. Ceoil, you may have found Adam's comments a bit overbearing but reviewers are here to help and there are other ways of asking for space without telling them to get lost. Adam, your oppose is helpful for the coordinators to judge your level of concern, so you can afford to give the nominators a chance to act on the comments in their own time. Consensus to promote is best reached through collegial discussion. Thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
that's fair. I will not answer this person again, his oppose is welcome to stand, and his slander noted. I've always enjoyed the ruff and tuble of a challenging review, but something is very off here. The how dare you tone is one reveal, there are others. Yours in scumines, as stands on Ian's talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You tried to out me. What the hell did you expect? I'm happy to keep this focused on the article, but you have acted abominably, and haven't shown the slightest sign of remorse for something WP:OUTING says should get you blocked. I don't want you blocked. It's a very open secret, and I've made the connection publicly a few times - but you apparently didn't know that, because you had absolutely no reason to bring it up. If you recognise your behaviour has been completely inappropriate, we can work on improving the article. But as it stands, you have shown no ability to handle minor criticisms of your article, and shouldn't be here if you're not actually interested in improving it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • wanna hyphen in "inward looking" and "vertically cut"?
    • Tks Cas, as I recall we don't hyphenate after "ly" though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Today its varnish is severely degraded - "today" redundant here
  • link Infrared photography somehwere
  • link bourrelet and cornette too
  • Descriptors for Panofsky and Danens at first mention
  • This is now done. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. a good read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

  • I've made a few edits; please feel free to revert anything that you don't agree with.
  • The description of pigments (red lake, etc) and fingers is repeated at the bottom of the "Description" and at the bottom of the "Portrait" - probably best to combine somehow
  • I've had a look at a few sources regarding the inscriptions and in my view everything that can be said is being said here: basically no one really understands the inscriptions but there has been plenty of speculation.
  • I've removed the accent from LEAL SOVVENIR - either JvE decided not to use it or it wasn't used in 15th cent French; but all the sources agree that is French, as indicated in the article. Sources seem to be split about 50/50 whether the accent is used in the title. fwiw.
  • I thought about suggesting italics for the foreign language words (and quotes for the translations) but I'm thinking for this article it's probably best not to follow that convention because "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς" is enough of a mystery without giving it a slant.

Otherwise looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Olympic marmot[edit]

Nominator(s): —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a rodent endemic to the Olympic Mountains of Washington state. I helped a little with getting it to GA a couple years ago. Revisiting the page, I think it is comprehensive enough and otherwise meets the FA criteria, and any issues with it can be dealt with in this featured article candidacy. —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • Usual thorough work, just a few queries before I formally support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • terrestrial animals and avian raptors, x2—context suggests "mammals" would be more accurate than "animals"
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bears, golden eagle, Seattle
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Colonies of burrows—Colonies refers to animals not structures; if this is a specialised use, as it appears to be from later in the article, needs to be explained at first occurrence
    • Rewritten. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • They are known for being very sociable—I'd lose "known for being"
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • large shape of its mandible—surely "size" rather than "shape"?
    • Both shape and large size, it seems. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Olympic marmot is a folivorous... They—Singular subject, but plural pronoun in rest of paragraph
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • dominant male if the existing dominant male dies—perhaps something like "incumbent" to avoid repetition.
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • answered legislators' questions to overcome bipartisan opposition—How did it get through if both parties were united in opposing?
    • Added 'initial'. Thanks for your comments! —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No further concerns, changed to support above, god luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Being currently in a rodent frame of mind, I propose to review this article. In general it looks well-written and comprehensive. Here are a few points I noticed:

  • "They enter hibernation in September, during which time they are in a deep sleep and do not eat" - "hibernation" is not a time but a state of inactivity.
    • Done. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The significant difference of the Olympic marmot's jawbone from the typical Petramarmota is also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range with a small population. - I'm unclear what this sentence means.
    • Clarified. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about the colour of adults. You mention various moults and various colours but I struggle to follow what colour the animal is at different ages and times of year.
  • The two parts of the sentence starting "In the fall" are mutually inconsistent. If the colour change is the result of a moult, the colour is unlikely to further fade after surfacing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Think I clarified this. —innotata 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Olympic marmots are folivorous (leaf-eaters) ..." - If they are folivores, should not their diet consist entirely of leaves?
    • Leaves are clearly stated to be the main part of their diet. Typically when people say an animal is an x-vore they don't mean it never eats anything else. I'll address the rest of the comments later. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Passing thought - If they emerge from hibernation in May, mate 10 to 20 days later and gestate for a month the pups are born in about late June. They are weaned 10 weeks later which brings us to early September, just about time for them to start hibernating. How can the pups have built up enough body reserves in this time to survive a nine month period without food?
  • Since writing the last comment I have read the Edelman source, #2, and see that the reproductive cycle is not as stated in the article, but is 10 weeks from mating to weaning and the juveniles enter into hibernation later than the adults. The National Park Service source, #12, to which some of this part of the article is referenced, is inaccessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've clarified when they enter hibernation, and corrected the part on weaning. I think this is resolved. —innotata 05:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • At the moment I am tending to oppose this candidacy. Looking specifically at the Description and Feeding sections I see too many instances of the article text not correctly summarising the source text. Here are some examples but there are many more and I think the article should be gone through carefully comparing its content to its sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully I can fix this, soon. (Note that while I'm responsible for fixing the article if I want to get it to featured status, I didn't write most of it.) —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The middle paragraph of the description section is confusing and still does not reflect the source in connection with the second moult. The part about the adult coat should be rewritten in a more coherent fashion. The final paragraph of the section needs to be consistent with the middle one.
  • Rephrased. —innotata 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The use of the word "folivorous". Neither source uses with this word and one of the sources states "The inflorescences and upper 6-10 cm of new growth are typically eaten." A folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves and this marmot does not.
  • Removed folivore; someone just added it to increase links to the article anyway… —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #12 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg. " Marmots have a sharp, piercing whistle that warns others of intruders or potential predators, and notifies hikers that they are in marmot territory." has become "... in order both to alert other marmots and to tell the hiker that he or she is in the marmots' territory." The emphasized phrase is not the purpose of the call.)
  • Removed these parts, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #20 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg "... a longer growing season may allow marmots to grow more quickly, mature earlier, and breed more often" has become "... a longer growing season in which marmots could grow quickly and mature earlier, and thus breed more frequently throughout the year.")
  • Removed "throughout the year" and rephrased a bit. —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find any more of the article that is inconsistent with this ref. (The section on young I changed somewhat, but it didn't have actual inaccuracies.) —innotata 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uses of the Edelman source at #2 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg The article states: "Olympic marmots also communicate through the sense of smell to mark their territory. A gland located in their cheek exudes chemicals which they rub on scenting points, such as shrubs and rocks, to indicate possession." This is not borne out by the source, in fact, as per this source, these marmots are not territorial within the colony, and the scent markings are social in nature.)
  • Removed the parts mentioned above, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I see this article was expanded/worked on as a class project which probably explains some of its deficiencies.
  • In the feeding section it states that the marmot may kill late-hibernating chipmunks, but as far as I can see in snippet view, the source states "On two different occasions in the spring, I saw an Olympic marmot carrying a dead chipmunk in its mouth." I couldn't see the rest of the page, but it doesn't seem likely that it stated that the marmot had killed the chipmunks.
    • Well, a number of the article's other sources simply say that Olympic marmots kill chipmunks; I think an earlier paper mentions this behavior, so I'll see if I can find it. If I can't find any more specific information, I suppose I should change the text to reflect that Barash only provided anecdotal accounts of them carrying dead chipmunks. As for whether they killed the chipmunks, Barash says marmots can't kill chipmunks above ground, but probably do kill them while they are hibernating. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in the lead has the animal's weight mentioned at both the beginning and end. This duplication seems excessive.
    • Eh? There's no duplication, as it mentions the typical weight, and then sexual dimorphism. I brought these sentences together. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph in the lead mentions dried grasses, but these are not mentioned in the same way in the feeding section.
  • "During a study in the Olympic Mountains, 36 droppings were compiled and two of them contained marmot hairs." - I don't think "compiled" is the right word here.
    • Collected is better. Done. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots, as their presence close to colonies generally does not raise alarm calls unless the bear advances up to 6 m (20 ft) from the colony." - The first part of this statement is borne out by the source but not the second part, as far as I can see.
    • Specified the ref for that. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Cestodes and fleas use the Olympic marmot as a host, showing a secondary role for the marmot within its ecosystem." - It is difficult to view having parasites as a "role" and this is certainly not mentioned in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It is a role, eh… but that does not need to be included in this article. Removed. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Trey Burke[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a professional basketball player who was recently in the national spotlight as the 2013 National player of the year. The article covers the subject well.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified Moisejp, the GA reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified WP:MICHIGAN, WP:NBA, WP:CBBALL, WP:WPBIO and WP:BBALL as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also notified the discussants of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1 (Giants2008, Toa Nidhiki05, MarshalN20, Skotywa, Yellow Evan, and Elcid.ruderico)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified Utah Jazz editor Charlesaaronthompson as well as 2013–14 Utah Jazz season editors Sirex98, AmazingGamer 91, and Thebrainthinker--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


  • The 3rd graph of the lead, which covers his collegiate year needs quite a bit of trimming. We do not need to list every award here, especially 2nd team awards. The reader should get the feel he was well regarded as a player, but not so much they stop reading this paragraph and move on to the next.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Karen[edit]

Nominator(s): Temporary cyclone north.svg Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Karen in 1962 is regarded as one of the wost natural disasters in the history of Guam. A powerful Category 5-equivalent storm, Karen battered the island with winds estimated at 285 km/h (185 mph), destroying the majority Guam's infrastructure and devastating the environment. Some referred to the wasteland left behind as "hell" with almost nothing left standing in the storm's wake. Despite the ferocity of Karen, relatively few people lost their lives. In the years following Karen, a massive change in how the United States handled Guam took place. Formerly an area of military occupation, Karen paved the way for military security to disbanded and allowed the economy to flourish.

From a mighty disaster came a new beginning for Guam. Both the economy and infrastructure of the island were overhauled due to the typhoon and Karen is the key catalyst that has made Guam what it is today. I hope you all enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it! Regards, Temporary cyclone north.svg Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Support as GA reviewer. That being said, I have just a few tiny nitpicks.

  • You should explicitly mention SSHS in the lead if you're gonna say Category 5.
  • Link maximum sustained winds in the lead?
  • " Total losses on the island amounted to $250 million" - are losses and damages the same?
  • "either California, Hawaii, or Wake Island" - either implies only two. I'd drop that word.
  • " it was later attributed with improving" - change "with" to "to"
  • Maybe indicate where Truk is in the MH? Otherwise, if you started upon reading the MH, there is no indication which ocean or continent the storm formed near.
  • "The lowest verified pressure was 931.9 mb (hPa; 27.52 inHg) at the Agana Naval Air Station." how is this the lowest if the one after it was lower?
  • The lead says that Karen reached peak intensity after Guam, but the MH doesn't mesh with that. How come?
  • "Wind gusts over the southern tip of Guam were estimated to have peaked around 185 km/h (115 mph)." ... " Based on this measurement, a study in 1996 estimated that gusts peaked between 280 and 295 km/h (175 and 185 mph) over southern areas of the island." = see the problem?
  • "The ROK Han Ra San and RPS Negros Oriental sunk" --> "sank"

Just those few little things. I'm still happy to support :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lafayette dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin where it is perhaps fortunate that the engraver did not have to inscribe the subject's full name. The usual tale of a poor design and worse sales, with bit appearances from some of the Gay Nineties people from my political articles.Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Lafayette_-_Paris.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the statue? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I've dealt with these matters. Thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review Just a couple of quick thoughts/comments:

  • Of the 43 footnotes, all but two are shortened. The article from The New York Times hasn't been shortened, which is understandable since it isn't a book like the others, but footnote 32 is citing a book. I think that should be shortened like the other books for consistency. (Also, you might want to add |via=Google Books to the full citation for that source, and any others where it would be appropriate, to indicate that the online copy is hosted there.)
  • You may want to enclose the list of books below the footnotes with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} so that the text size and other formatting matches up with the list generated by {{reflist}}
  • You many want to consider adding |lastauthoramp=yes to the full Swiatek & Breen and citation so that it uses the ampersand in front of the last author in the list. That way it would render the authors of that source "Swiatek, Anthony & Breen, Walter".
  • It would be nice if ISBNs or OCLC numbers were added where possible. For example, based on the Google Books information for the Adams book, the OCLC for that source is OCLC 191237505.
  • You may want to tweak the Peck source to use |volume=vol. 1; once the value for |volume= expands like that, the boldfacing is dropped. Also, it makes it clearer that the "I" is in fact a volume number.
  • You may also want to change the Slabaugh citation to use |edition=2nd since I think that's more commonly rendered with the numeral than spelled out.
  • Corporate designations like "Inc", "LLC" and even "Company" are typically omitted from the names of publishers in citations. The fact that Whitman Publishing was division of Western Publishing in 1975 is also pretty superfluous to the goal of a good citation: enabling a reader to locate a copy of the source to consult.

All of the above are offered as thoughts to improve on the consistency in formatting the sources used. In general, I find the sources used to be of the standard expected for a Featured Article (high-quality reliable sources). Imzadi 1979  06:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those. I have gotten most, I think. I'm going to stay pedantic and keep with the LLC and all that. Your comment on the Slabaugh book (Whitman/Western), it was raised in a source review on another FAC as the ISBN (as I recall) was recorded as for Western, so in an excess of caution I'm going to keep that status quo.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I have done something of a peer review here, so quite a few comments but nothing of huge significance:

  • "it was the only US commemorative prior to 1983 to be a silver dollar" → "it was the only US silver dollar commemorative prior to 1983"
  • "valued at several hundred dollars to tens of thousands" – the "at" should be "from" (idiom is from–to not at–to)
These two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary to trundle out Lafayette's multiple names here – there's a linked article which readers can consult for this information. Is there any reason why the first two short paras shouldn't be combined?
  • Second para: "suggested" → "suggests" (and perhaps throughout)?
  • "King Louis XVI ordered that he not go on the demand of the British ambassador." Somewhat clumsy, and vaguely ambiguous. I suggest "...on the demand of the British ambassador, King Louis XVI ordered him not to go."
  • "The marquis escaped through disguise as a courier": Is "escaped" the right word? Presumably he wasn't being held captive. I'd prefer: "The marquis got away, disguised as a courier"
  • "The reasons for this included that the 19-year-old sought no pay from the nascent nation, and also Congress received a letter from American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential." Maybe 1775 is a little early for "nascent" (i.e. new-born), a year before the Declaration of Independence? Otherwise, the sentence does not parse well at the moment. Perhaps: "The reasons for this included the 19-year-old's refusal to accept pay from the nascent nation, and also that Congress had received a letter from Benjamin Franklin, American envoy to France, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential."
At this point we are discussing 1777. I'll play with your wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarify that Cornwallis was the British commander at Yorktown (not everyone knows this)
  • The sentence that ends the section needs attribution.
  • Generally – I found this section somewhat overdetailed, diverting focus from the coin. The importance of Lafayette in US history, and thus the justification for the commemorative coin, could be summarised more briefly.
Identified, attributed, and shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "which though reported favorably by the committee" – should be "reported on", but "which though received favorably by the committee" would be more elegant
"reported favorably" is political-talk and it is what is said of bills given a thumbs up by a committee. I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "to see to it that" → "to ensure that"
  • "Another means of fundraising was a proposed commemorative coin" – probably "Another proposed means of fundraising was a commemorative coin"?
  • The words "when Barber wrote to Roberts" don't seem necessary within the narrative
  • "Afterwards, Barber reported to the Mint Director, "I think we will hear no more of the Lafayette prayer" and that Peck now appreciated that the space available for a design, even on a silver dollar (the largest US coin) was limited, "and as it is the desire of the Committee [commission] to have the monument displayed, the prayer will have to find some other place". Super-long, super-complicated for a single sentence. Needs reorganisation.
  • "Slabaugh noted" and "according to Slabaugh" should not occur within one sentence
  • "United States of America" and "Lafayette Dollar" appear at the top and bottom of the obverse." It's not clear what coin this sentence is referring to. It follows immediately on information relating to Krider's medals, and reads as though it's about them, though I doubt that it is.
  • "which customarily in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield..." etc – is there a source for this and the other given assumptions?
There's some discussion of it here. I've toned it down, since there seem to be doubts in the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Some punctuation missing un this quote? "Lafayette is represented in the statue as a fact and a symbol, offering his sword and services to the American colonists in the cause of liberty he appears as the emblem of the aristocratic and enthusiastic sympathy shown by France to our forefathers." A sentence break is necessary, best after "cause of liberty" but possibly after "American colonists".
I'm traveling but will be home Sunday and check it against source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a sentence break was missing. Corrected.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Whose description of Saint-Gaudens is "Barber enemy"?
Vermeule describes elsewhere the conflicts between the two, though not in great detail, and the tone I felt justified it. However, I've added a more explicit reference the relevant text of which (available in Barber coinage) is " the 1891 competition turned the two against each other for the rest of their lives".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Production and aftermath
  • Do we need the verbatim 120-word report from the Public Ledger, rather than a short paraphrase?
No, but I don't think it detracts. Most people reading at this point will be interested in the detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the third para the word "similarly" seems inappropriate, since offers of $10,000 and $5,000 respectively do not seem all that similar.
  • "this was not done" → "the offer was not accepted"
  • Is any reason known for postponing the presentation to 3 March?
Not mentioned in source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The commission was also plagued" – delete "also"
  • "The commission was tardy in giving the final order for the statute to Bartlett" – spot the superfluous "t"
  • Overlinking of Bowers (see last para of previous section)
I don't see this, the only consecutive cite to Bowers is in the paragraph beginning "The commission was tardy" and the first anchors a quote.
  • In the fifth para the date "July 4" is repeated several times in close succession (I know it's my birthday, but...) At last one of these should be tweaked.
  • "Buying a professionally graded and certified specimen should avoid this problem". This reads like advice to collectors, and does not sit well in an encyclopedia article.

Looking forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I've gotten them all, except as noted. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: The issues I've raised have been fully answered/amended. WP's coin hoard continues to grow. Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and I've cleared up that one final point.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

M. du Motier is at A-class review. Feel free. He's next up, absent unforeseen problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant an "a" or a "the". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary when defining someone in that way.
  • Alright, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Lafayette dollar is valued from several hundred dollars to tens of thousands, depending on condition. - perhaps indicate that this is current, and for collectors?
It's general enough that it isn't going to change anytime soon. I'll add a "by collectors". It's worth the same whoeever owns it.
  • rebound against - have repercussions for, perhaps? Rebound always makes me think of basketball — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The first Columbian half dollar had been sold for $10,000. - didn't you mention this coin already, but not link it?
  • 1983-S Los Angeles Olympics dollar - worth redlining?
I really haven't considered doing modern commemoratives yet, but it's an early one and got lots of coverage so it's a possibility. Will redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I really don't have much to add. This is an excellent article, in a line of excellent articles, and my only issues are all minor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you most kindly for the review and support (I haven't thanked Brian yet as I haven't tracked down the source I need to check the quote he queried).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with Crisco's points.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

2010 Sylvania 300[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2010 running of the Sylvania 300, a NASCAR race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway. Nascar1996 originally brought this article to GA status on November 2010, almost four years ago. Shortly thereafter, the article was taken to peer review. The goal was for this to be taken to FAC; however, for whatever reason, that never happened. After doing some additional copyediting and addressing all of the peer review comments, I now believe the article is complete and meets the criteria. I'll also add that this is pretty much uncharted territory as there are no other NASCAR related articles currently at FA status. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

William Wurtenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I present William Wurtenburg, a very obscure 19th century American football coach. Born and raised in New York, going to Yale and playing on its football team appear to be the climax in Wurtenburg's life. He was a college football coach for six years, then spent the rest of his life giving people ear exams. Prior to my work on this article, the most comprehensive biography of Wurtenburg was a two-paragraph mention in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography. After a few months of hard work, I now believe this article will be the most comprehensive work ever made about this man. I received some help from Jweiss11 on fixing some of the mistakes I had made, and this now appears to be some of Wikipedia's best work (definitely its best on a random, obscure college football coach). - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This article concerns Lightning, a fictional character in the Final Fantasy series and the central character of the Final Fantasy XIII games, produced and published by Square Enix. Most references are both working and archived (exceptions are sites that won't allow archiving or won't archive properly: Square Enix-related pages, IGN, Complex), while those who had either flaky or not working anymore are archived and the archive pages work. The article was given GA status in October 2013, and was made part of the Final Fantasy XIII Good Topic in July of this year. The article has undergone a copyedit and its peer review has been archived. I feel that it is of sufficient quality to become a Featured Article. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

  • Strong support: An excellent article. I find most Wikipedia pages on fictional characters very boring, but this one is different: all meaningful, interesting content; no cruft. The prose quality—my main complaint—is now easily 1a-level. You've hit it out of the park with this article, ProtoDrake. Before I get out of your hair, I should mention that some of my final prose tweaks may have misrepresented the sources. Feel free to correct any mistakes I made. Hope the rest of the FAC goes smoothly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Image review - Passed
  • File:Lightning CG.png - Fair Use of the character in question; I'd prefer if the source was more specific as to where the image was gotten from, rather than just the copyright holder
  • File:Lightning XIII-2 screenshot.png - Fair Use of the character in her second appearance; the resolution is a little high (Per WP:IMAGERES, shoot for width x height <= 100,000- right now you're at ~140,000, so you'll want something closer to 420x236 than 500x281). I'd like the purpose of use to be a bit longer, too; right now it's mainly "to show that Lightning looked different in the second game". Talk about what visual aspects changed that necessitate another image to show them.
  • File:Lightning LR screenshot.png - Fair Use of the character in her third appearance; same issues as the XIII-2 image.
--PresN 22:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Done my best with all three. If the source for the main infobox image is not adequate, that can be sorted, I think. Image resize was easy enough, expanding the fair use was a bit more challenging. I also added sources for the other two images. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, now passed. --PresN 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Sorry for coming to this late. I think that all of the prose issues have already been addressed as reading through most of the article concludes no issues. I'll support this transition from GA to FA as the prose is flawless. However there was only one thing that confused me: Jaguar 12:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • "She was depicted as having transcended her human limits, making it "kind of hard to approach her" as a person." - why does this make it hard to approach her and where did the quote come from?
Done my best with that. I think, given the nature of the question that statement was part of an answer to, that they meant in approaching her depiction and characterization rather than physically approaching her. I've adjusted it accordingly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Spokane, Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about...Spokane, Washington, a medium-sized city in eastern Washington. This former railroad, mining, and timber town is Washington's second largest city and is the county seat of Spokane County as well as the metropolitan center of the Inland Northwest region. I hope you enjoy reading and learning about Spokane! G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, suggest quick withdrawal—The nominator is not a major contributor and has made less than ten edits on Wikipedia, enough to assume that he is not familiar with the FA criteria and how the entire process works.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have edited this article and Wikipedia for years as an IP. Anyway, I do hope you come around, reconsider, and critique the article. That would be very helpful and I would like your opinion. I did read and was aware of the criteria before I nominated it. I know your concern is over this passage: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."
I dont think you should worry though. I think that is just a recommendation. I am familiar with the topic, editing, and the criteria that has to be met. I dont think that can apply to this case anyway because it doesnt look like there are any significant named Users to inform before I nominated it. I hope you and other users can be open-minded and less distracted by how recent the nominators account was created and judge it by the content of the article. A lot of people have worked hard on it and it shows. I believe if it doesnt meet the criteria that we can easily work it out so that it does. Thank youG755648 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - hmm, read this through while at the gym earlier tonight on my smartphone. I think it is pretty good comprehensiveness- and balance-wise (though I concede I don't know the city well enough to stake my life on that), but the prose needs some tightening. I will try and find and either fix straightforward stuff or list queries below, though sometimes if it is this loose it might need more than one extra set of eyes. Anyway..if you know the subject and can help with factual fixes or clarifications this might be a goer.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The word "city" is mentioned four times in the first para of lead. Also, the fourth para should be merged into first para as content is similar - will also allow removal of repeated fact that it is the second largest city in Washington.
Done Good idea. It was tricky, but I like it better now.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement - the "and began European Settlement" is redundant - repeated in next sentence. I was going to remove it but left it to you to figure how to rephrase the sentence.
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The last para of American settlement section is a bit laboured with the three sentences on railroads - surely this can be streamlined?
Done Combined the first two sentences and references which are very similar. Think the last one should stand alone since its a significant fact and has 3 references that we dont want to get jumbled up with the others.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
In the new century, Spokane is still reinventing itself to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector - hmm, needs rephrasing, why not just "promoting" or "developing" a "more service-oriented economy"....?
I wouldnt mind that. I do like it the way it is currently worded with 'reinventing' though because I think it conveys more of a sense and reality that Spokane's transition hasnt been easy and it's struggling from losses. The recession that the last paragraph in the 20th century section was talking about saw the shutting down of the 2 aluminum plants from WWII and the loss of many jobs in the manufacturing sector (which isnt mentioned). They briefly mention the loss of those jobs a HistoryLink article, I think Ill put it in there. Let me know what you think.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've done this so far to trim some flab off the writing. There is more - look for repeated words in sentences or adjacent clauses. I have to sleep now - back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never noticed the redundancy, Ill keep an eye out for some more parts like the ones you mentioned. Right now Ive been working on the refs, looking for dead links and page migrations. Thank you for your help!G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You'll get better at it - one of the best things I've read since editing here is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Note that I don't mean make it too dry, there is a fine balance here.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
See, here are some more examples. The danger is that if an article is really flabby, I will stop seeing them after a while as I become used to the article. Still, I think we are making progress and will get some other folks to review the prose when I am done. I think the prose is tighter further down the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you do get used to it after a while lol. Thanks for bringing your friends in to help, the more the merrier.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of Spokane's history is reflected in its large variety of neighborhoods and districts. - see, I'd say this is true of any city and that nothing is lost by this sentence's removal - let the facts of the following sentences speak for themselves.
Done::: Removed intro sentence.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Spokane experiences a four-season climate,... - I'd remove this as redundant in the culture section
DoneG755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
In the fires' aftermath, 32 blocks of Spokane's downtown were destroyed and one person was killed - err, it was the fire, not its aftermath, which did these things.....
A more active way to see natural sites in the Spokane area include travelling the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails.... - sounds a bit like a tourism brochure. Can trim to "The Spokane River Centennial Trail features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails....."
FixedG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Spokane is served by a variety of print media. - pointless sentence. Would be true of all but the smallest towns. suggest removal
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Crime rates in Spokane can vary greatly and differ depending on neighborhood. - true of just about all cities. what would be more notable is a homogeneous city. suggest removal
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Provision impression - within striking distance I think. The sourcing looks ok and the article strikes me as comprehensive and balanced. I found quite a bit of fluff to trim in the prose and it's looking better, and I can't see any clangers outstanding. However I am cautious as once I read through a few times I too start missing things, so will ping another prose-analyser to take alook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping out Cas Liber! You have a tremendous eye for detail and have done a great deal to clean up this article and make it better. :)G755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Crime rates- the figures in the table are derived from an FBI table of total crimes, not crimes per 100,000 as shown, e.g. 1,369 violent crimes in a population of 212,163= 645 per 100,000. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I see what youre talking about, but Im at a loss on how to fix it. If I could I would just take that note out but it looks like its embedded in the template. Is there something we can do to the template? I could change the source to the state UCR data for crime rates per 100,000, which is cited in the prose, but I would prefer not to since that template and source is sort of standardized on many city articles with a Crime section, including the Tulsa, Oklahoma and Hillsboro, Oregon featured articles which have the same issue. Let me know what you think is bestG755648 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Same here- I don't know. It does seem a template problem. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I hope someone who can help finds out about that and updates it. Nice job noticing it.G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Per WP:ALT, alt text and captions shouldn't be the same
  • File:Riverfront_Park_Carousel.JPG: don't think this would be covered by freedom of panorama in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Changed the alt so it isnt the same as any of the captions. Tell me if it still needs work or if I missed one. Took out the carousel pic.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments – I'll read properly over the next day or so, but meanwhile two quick points on spelling: I've never seen "deaconess" with a double "n" (perhaps a UK-v-US thing) and "orthopaedic" rather than "orthopedic" looks more like BrEng than AmEng to me. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. More from me shortly. Tim riley talk 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done You are absolutely right about the spelling of 'Deaconess', it is supposed to have only one 'n' and if you find one with two, it is a mistake and feel free to take it out; I took out the one instance I found in there. I dont know about BrEng vs AmEng on this, but the Shriners website uses "orthopaedic" so I just went with it. I do think "orthopedic" is more common and looks less of a mouthful though so Im going to change that too. Thanks for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments This is my first stab at a review, so please be patient. In reviewing the lead, I think you might want to take the historical information from the last two paragraphs and combine them into one, and put the resources and notable institutions into its own paragraph at the end. Currently it seems a little disjointed to see the history start and move on to a new topic only to return later.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Good point. I shuffled some sentences around and now all the history comes before the other facts about its name and nickname and colleges. Hope you like itG755648 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the largest land mammal that has ever lived. The article was in a sorry state before, but luckily the first semi-technical book devoted to this animal was published last year, which synthesised a lot of obscure information, and is the main basis for this article. Much of its history is very complicated, and I have tried to explain it in an understandable way. The article is part of the Wikipedia CD Selection, which may be of importance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Indricotherium.jpg: both of the links under the description are dead - they're not essential, but if you have updated links that would be nice
I'd rather just remove them, but do you prefer links perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "restoration" really the correct word for those drawings? It's not a usage I'm familiar with
It is widely used for "palaeoart". Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Indricotherium11.jpg: this appears at deviantart under a different license, one not acceptable for Wikipedia
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Commons. He has dozens of other images there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg: again, published elsewhere under a more restrictive license. The situation needs to be clarified as the two licenses are not compatible. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Russian Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - ooh goody, glad someone has buffed this. I'd planned to do it one day but pleased someone else has...I'll just order the book and read at my leisure :)

....comments below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the book is weirdly balanced I think, I'd have liked more info about specimens for example, but instead there's pages and pages of biographies... FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Alot of sentences in para 2 of lead start with "It..." - it'd be good to vary the sentences a bit.
Ah, forgot this, varied a bit, does it need more? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
the shoulder height was about 6 metres (20 feet), and the length about 8.0 metres (26.2 feet). - why 8.0 metres and not 8 here?
Not sure, conversion templates were added by the copyeditor. But their parameters seem to be set the same way? How can this be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I removed the .0, fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The classification of the genus and the species within has a long and complicated history. - I suspect "taxonomy" may be a more accurate word than "classification" here.....
Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
although the latter may be a distinct genus. - "latter" --> "last" as there are three not two items listed.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd link taxonomy at first mention
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The superfamily Rhinocerotoidea can be traced back to the early Eocene age - "age" is redundant and misleading here - should be removed
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you've erred slightly on the side of underlinking - I'd link vertebra, molar, premolar, incisor...some of the more obscure things in para 2 of skull section might have links too.
A lot links were removed and much was reworded during copyediting, I'll fix it. SOme words, like incisor, are already linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything more on the habitat at all in the source?
I'll see if I can squeeze some more out. Perhaps the stuff about territories and "home ranges" could be moved into that section from behaviour as well? This: "Prothero suggests that animals as big as indricotheres would need very large home ranges or territories of at least 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres), and that because of a scarcity of resources, there would have been little room in Asia for many populations or a multitude of nearly identical species and genera. This principle is called competitive exclusion; it is used to explain how the black rhinoceros (a browser) and white rhinoceros (a grazer) exploit different niches in the same areas of Africa." FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that'd be good into a paleobiology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I meant whether it should be moved from palaebiology to habitat/distribution? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry/yes/my bad/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support on comprehensiveness and prose. overall a good read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comments Article reaches the standard, just a couple of points for you to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason for the animal's extinction is unknown— "reasons... are"? Likely to be multiple according to your article
  • sizes ranged from dog-sized to the size of Paraceratherium.— rephrase to avoid three sizes in one sentence
  • pi (π) shaped— should be hyphenated, and I think piped "π-shaped" looks neater anyway
Thanks, fixed the two first suggestions. You don't think I would need to spell pi out? I'd believe not all people are familiar with the sign? FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, the hyphen is obligatory, as with L-shaped later, so you need would pi- (π-) shaped, which is awful. I think that anyone reading this article would be familiar with what is probably the best known of all Greek letters, more so than with perissodactyl, and the link through to the article would immediately enlighten anyone who didn't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

  • Interesting beast, and interesting article. Quite a few prose/accessability issues
The article was thoroughly copy edited by bafflegab, so should be ok, but I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1908, he referred the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium, as the new species A. bugtiense." I couldn't understand this sentence; I am guessing the reason is an odd use of the word "referred", but can't be sure.
"Refer" is standard taxonomy language, changed to assigned or moved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1913, Forster-Cooper named Thaumastotherium ("wonderful beast") osborni based on larger fossils from the same excavations..." Not sure what this is saying exactly. This appears to be talking about a new species called Thaumastotherium osborni - is that correct? If so, then the paragraph probably needs clearer signposting that we are going to be talking about multiple species. If not, then i don't understand what it's saying.
It is saying he named a new taxon, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a literally correct, but very unorthodox use of the term "preoccupied" that would be better replaced with something else, such as "the former name had already been used to describe..."
I'm not so sure, that is standard taxonomy language, and even has a good redirect. The taxonomy section uses taxonomic language, simplifying it will probably not be helpful to convey the exact meaning. But I have clarified this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "... so fragmentary that Foster-Cooper was unsure what kind of perissodactyl they belonged to..." This isn't fair to the reader - it isn't enough to provide a link to such an obscure term, particularly when that link turns out to be a redirect. The text should explain more fully what the difficulty here was about.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1936, Walter Granger and William K. Gregory proposed that Forster-Cooper's Baluchitherium osborni was likely a junior synonym of Paraceratherium bugtiense because these specimens were collected at the same locality and were possibly part of the same morphologically variable species.[16] Forster-Cooper had expressed similar doubts.[17] This was also suggested by William Diller Matthew in 1931." - how can someone "also suggest" something before the other person proposes it? The chronology of this section needs to be reworked to put the proposals in chronological order, oldest first.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • regarding the same passage, i think a plain English explanation of junior synonym will help readability.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Similar issue with nomina dubiae
Changed to the English term dubious names. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Paraceratherium is considered the largest known land mammal that has ever existed" - very unusual to use the singular for a genus containing several species. Should it not read "are considered to have been the largest known land mammals ever to have existed"?
Well, it is a genus, singular, just like for example Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, etc. Likewise, you could say "the elephant is the largest living land mammal", or "Stegosaurus had spikes on its tail" even though the terms denote multiple species. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't look at the rest right now, but there's some to start with. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Can I clarify: current literature recognises multiple species, is that correct? At least 3 and possibly as many as 7? It is hard to be clear from that section what the current view(s) are.
Four species. This is specifically mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph under Species and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see an explanation or link for the reader to explain the Christian cross-shaped symbol used in the infobox. What is its significance?
(Animalparty responding) The dagger symbol (not a Christian cross) is a widely used symbol in biology and paleontology to indicate extinct taxa. Some articles have the dagger wikilinked to extinction, or have an HTML code that says "extinct" when a pointer hovers over it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It is extinction. It has been added to most articles about extinct animals, so it is a wider issue that I have little to no control over. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess what I meant to say is, this should be explained and/or linked for readers. I've fixed that with a note in the box. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
They used to be links, it seems the template has been altered. It should be relinked, then a note will be redundant. I'll see if I can fix it. See also this discussion: Also see here[7], where I've proposed the dagger should be a link. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Like User:Animalparty, I don't believe the article should begin with taxonomy. I don't believe any article about a thing should start with anything other than a description of that thing, a view I have expressed in the past at FAC. It is a pattern that has become mistakenly established in our articles about animals, and I don't really have the energy to try and turn all of them around. However, the pattern in plant FAs, such as Banksia marginata, which I do support, is to begin with the description. This is also the convention set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Note also that the article template at Wikiproject animals also does not start with taxonomy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template - instead it begins with anatomy and morphology, which is essentially description of the thing. I think it is crazy to have an encyclopedia for everyone that has articles that do not begin by telling the reader what it is we are talking about. I believe that this has resulted from our animal articles following the practice of the scientific literature. But Wikipedia isn't the scientific literature, it is written so that an everyday reader can access it. I propose the order to be: description - taxonomy - palaeobiology - distribution and habitat. In the case of the P. article I would have thought this would be particularly helpful, since the description (and its uncertaintly) would help the reader understand why the taxonomy is so complicated. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, see my response to Animalparty, which he agreed with. Most other FAs about mammals start with taxonomy, so I prefer to follow this clear precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, i'm just wanting to be clear that I don't support the practice, in those precedents or here - i don udnerstand why you would want to follow it. One of the difficulties is in knowing how to change the practice, given that the approach isn't grounded in a Wikiproject template or guideline. But I'll leave this for delegates. :-)
I've actually reconsidered and think precedents should be questioned. There are relatively few paleo mammal FA, and while there does appear to be a common structure of having Taxonomy or classification before description, lets face it some go pretty deep into the minutiae. The trend appears reversed in dinosaur articles (e.g. Allosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus), which often delve deeply into the history of discovery well after the description, and I don't see why that can't be a precedent. The mammal taxa on average don't seem to have taxonomic histories as complex or detailed as Paraceratherium, and the length alone might suggest it be restructured. It may just come down to style differences (i.e. opinions), but I feel most readers would be interested in the size, description, and biology first, and care less about soldiers in Baluchistan (do we need to know his name was Vickaery?), nomenclatural nuances, and lots of names unfamiliar to the average reader (notable scientists be they may). Like I said below, I believe little to nothing would be lost by restructuring, and big-picture clarity might be improved. But I also don't think it's worth debating a whole lot, so I've said my piece. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, then all it comes down to is taste, not policy. Dinosaur articles are structured quite differently from mammal and even bird articles overall, so I don't think they work as precedents. As also noted below, most sources about this animal start by untangling the taxonomic issue before anything else, which gives the subsequent info context. I think you can find as many people (including myself) who prefer taxonomy first as not, but I don't think this article should be a battleground for that. Better to bring it up on the tree of life wikiproject talk page or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Animalparty[edit]

--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The taxomomic history is probably the least interesting and least useful to the majority of readers: I think it should be moved to below the Description and Paleobiology. I don't think any clarity is lost by doing so, i.e. there is little in the Taxonomy section that is crucial to understanding the description, etc. Moving the taxonomy to the end would also mirror the current layout of the lead, which is preferable for logical flow.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure, first, it follows the structure of most other mammal FAs (lion, elephant, giraffe, woolly mammoth, etc.), which almost always have the taxonomy sections first. Secondly, after its size, the taxonomy issue is the most often mentioned and potentially confusing issue regarding this animal, so it is therefore one of the most important things to clarify before the reader goes on to the rest of the article. Thirdly, the section flows naturally into evolution, which should definitely be at the beginning of the article. And I'd hesitate to claim that most people would find the section the least interesting, if they do, it is rather easy to skip it. Prothero 2013 devotes a very long chapter to taxonomic history, before even describing the animal and its biology. I think this article should follow the precedents set by other FAs and the sources cited. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I won't object to precedents.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a couple of red-linked terms in the Description section should be defined in plain English or omitted rather than left red-linked: e.g. "had pleurocoel-like openings" means virtually nothing unless the reader already knows what a pleurocel is, and "graviportal build" is similarly jargony.
Fixed those you mentioned. More? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I'd like to see a bit more nuance in the evolution section. Is the 1989 cladogram still the consensus (if there is any)? The cladogram shows one hypothesis, yet the following sentence suggests at least one opposing view. Is there anything more recent that resolves the conflict? Here, citations to review articles or secondary texts (like Prothero 2013) might be best to provide balance and context. If there is controversy, explain it!
Prothero strictly follows the 1989 cladogram, the other hypotheses, Holbrook and the Chinese ones (which are already explained as iffy in this article), are minority views. Not much more to say about Holbrook's view, because his conclusion regarding indricotheres was just a short side remark in a study about a wider group, including tapirs. Also, this article is about a specific genus, not the indicothere subfamily as a whole, so in depth discussion of classification issues for the entire group is best left for the subfamily page. But I've added a bit more clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks better now.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the text above the cladogram, why is it emphasized that Triplopodinae was found to be the sister taxon to Indricotheriinae? Assuming there are only 2 subfamilies, isn't this a likely result?(oops, see below) or was this the first time Triplopodinae was proposed? Since Triplopodinae is red-linked, you may want to define or clarify it, and perhaps invert the sentence structure so that Indricotheriinae (the more relevant clade to Paraceratherium, and one which the readers will have encountered by this point) is mentioned before Triplopodinae (an otherwise foreign term for the reader).
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the cladogram itself: Why is the rest of Hyracodontidae omitted? Going only by that cladogram, one might assume (as I did) that Hyracodontidae consists only 2 families. The stem of the cladogram should be more clear.
The original source does not include more clades at the stem, so adding any would be original synthesis. But I have added the hyracodont name, as in the source, so should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In a 1999 study, Luke Holbrook instead found the indricotheres to be outside the hyracodontid group and wrote that the indricotheres may not be a monophyletic grouping. K. Heissig suggested that they were most closely related to rhinocerotids" - The form of these sentences gives the impression that Heissig' suggestion was published in Holbrook 1999, which presumably is not correct. Heissig should be individually referenced (or at least "Heissig (cited in Holbrook)"), and some kind of conjunction between the clauses (similarly? alternatively?) might also help flow.
I will add a year in front of Hessig's sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments. Reads a bit better now. P.S. there are some public domain tooth and bone illustrations in Forster-Cooper (1911) that may or may not be useful to include.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the illustration of a jaw is actually from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New comment: I noticed some of the old journal titles were incorrect (e.g. "Journal of Natural History" rather than "Annals and Magazine of Natural History"). I've fixed some, but more might need double-checking: e.g. "Records of the Geological Survey of India" might in fact be "Memoirs of ...". --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Weird, especially since those refs are filled in by a bot. And by the way, DOIs are already links, so for example here[8], there are two links to the same page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that's why you can't trust bots! :) Also, some DOIs link to Subscription sites, e.g. this one, because for some reason Taylor & Francis publishers demand payments for public domain works, even some over 100 years old!--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank the maker for and biodiversity library... FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New Comment: The duration and time that Paraceratherium lived should be emphasized and clarified a bit: the lead mentions the Oligocene, the taxobox says 34–23Ma, but that seems to be the entire duration of the Oligocene. Do Paraceratherium fossils span the entire Oligocene or just a section? The Distribution and habitat mentions 11 million years but that has not been firmly stated in the article yet beyond the taxobox. Some dates (even if rough) in the lead and body would help, e.g. "...lived in the Oligocene epoch, from around XX to XX million years ago", with maybe some discussion of earliest and latest stage/age of occurrence in the body. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources are a bit superficial when it comes to this issue, Prothero writes several pages about how some formations have been inaccurately dated in the past, but there is little about when the various species then actually existed. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have made it a bit clearer now, and added a bit more info about other things. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "and that it contains three discernible species; P. bugtiense (the type species), P. transouralicum, P. prohorovi, and P. orgosensis, although the last may be a distinct genus"- Did you mean four discernible species, or three discernable species with one equivocal species?
    • "The three species of Paraceratherium are mainly discernible through skull characteristics. P. bugtiense and P. orgosensis..." same as above, are there 3 or 4 in referering to P. orgosensis?
I was a bit unsure what to do with P. prohorovi, Prothero says it may not be possible to evaluate its placement, which I interpreted as him saying it was a dubious name, but he doesn't say this specifically, so I added the species anyway. So it should be four, I have fixed this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "The first fossils of Paraceratherium were discovered by the British geologist Guy Ellcock Pilgrim ... In 1908, he moved the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium..."- this might be clarified to something like: "The first fossils now recognized as Paraceratherium... In 1908 he placed the species in the extinct ...", since Pilgrim didn't really move anything yet.
Good catch, I implemented the first suggestion you made, but worded the rest a bit differently. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't P. bugtiense Pilgrim, 1908 be written as P. bugtiense (Pilgrim, 1908) due to Forster-Cooper's new combination?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "and distinct crochets of its molars" -what's a crochet?
Good question, the source doesn't give a definition... I'll give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, nothing... FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My guess would be a hook-like projection or hook-shaped structure, given the derivation of crochet. I've seen it mentioned in some paleo works but not clearly defined. I'll keep looking. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a question that's not mentioned: How many toes did Paraceratherium have?
I think one source specifically says that this is unknown, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It only said the front feet had three toes, but it seems all rhinos have both three front and hind toes on each limb, so I'm not sure if this is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (No not yet. see below)- I think with the resolution of this last set of comments the article is readable, coherent, and complete. Some of the red-linked terms do stand out a bit, but not detrimentally, and I think the word graviportal can be omitted entirely, or at least unlinked, as the adjective seems an unlikely article to be created (Graviportality? List of large and heavy animals?) and all necessary context is in the article. I think it meets WP:FACR, although there is always room for future improvements: one might be to include views from other secondary sources besides Prothero's- recognized authority as he is- to ensure that a western bias or personal bias isn't inadvertently introduced, and to fairly reflect how other researchers synthesize primary literature, but I don't think this prevents FA promotion. Lastly, it would be really cool to get this image in the article, if allowable, to really hammer home the size of the beast! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. We did actually have that image once, but I realised it was made after 1922, and therefore not PD US. In any case, we do have an image that shows the animal's size next to a museum crowd (with a cast of that skull in an armature), and we do have a photo of that exact skull, so it would be fairly redundant. As for competing hypotheses, I'll add which species and genera that are recognised by Chinese researchers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Old skull image has been readded (from another source), see below... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Another set of comments (which is why I've temporarily stricken my support):
  • First, I don't think this should be passed on as FA until someone with access to the original references does at least a cursory review. I may be able to access a university library within the week, or otherwise obtain the subscription journal articles.
That is how FACs are always done (standard practice), there is a "source review" and an "image review". The source review is done before the article can be passed, so supports have no bearing on it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The taxobox mentions 4 species under Species, yet only 3 species under species synonyms. Is P. prohorovi without synonyms? (totally fine if so). But going solely from the info in the article (please verify), shouldn't P. transouralicum Pavlova, 1922 and ?P. orgosensis Chiu, 1973 be written P. transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922) and ?P. orgosensis (Chiu, 1973) since they were both originally in a different genus?
P. prohorovi has no junior synonyms. As for parenthesis, this is not done in the sources, though, but it is technically true. Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Paraceratherium/Indrocotherium synonymy debate seems a bit more equivocal than stated. Ye et al. (2003) mention that McKenna and Bell's classic Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level (1997) recognizes the two genera as distinct. A 2004 description of P. yagouense recognizes both genera as well as Dzungariotherium. Sen et al 2011 (p. 12) do appear to show that most authors favor synonymy, but mention that Fortelius and Kappelman 1993 considered the two genera distinct, which is evident in the abstract. A 1959 monograph by Gromova apparently makes a case for the distinction of the two. I haven't seen McKenna & Bell or Fortelius & Kappelman to evaluate, but they may have salient comments. I realize that these conflicting opinions make a single article harder to write, but that's what we're stuck with. I don't know if Prothero mentions this or if newer literature clarifies it, but to dismiss or understate the views of non-western paleontologists would make an imbalanced article. Even if the 2-3 genus view is a minority, I think it warrants more coverage than "a 2003 paper by Chinese researchers".
McKenna and Bella (and others) only used the names without any analysis, therefore it has little scientific weight. Prothero complains about this in his book. The Chinese researchers actually argue for it, but with arguments that are not considered valid by Prothero and others. I can add a little more commentary. Pre-1989 articles can't really be used to contest more recent opinions. Also, P. yagouense has since been moved to Urtinotherium.FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Added mention. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reference of P. yagouense being reassigned? Not arguing, just curious. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth stating the most common synonym(s) at the top of the article, e.g. "Paraceratherium, also known as Indricotherium,.... " or perhaps at the end of the first paragraph. Both names (with and without "also known as...") are fairly prevalent both in popular and scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for Indricotherium -Paraceratherium in the last 20 years yields about 150 results, while the opposite yeilds about 100. A Google N-gram search similarly shows I. a little more common than P. (but both dwarfed by Baluchitherium!) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I would hesitate to do this, these are not common names, they are synonyms (and are often mentioned in most works that don't even recognise them, therefore they get recent scholar hits) and they are already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead (which used to be the second, until someone complained on the talkpage it was too complicated for regular readers to start with). Baluchitherium is not considered valid by any researchers today, which also shows that scholar hits may not be entirely useful for determining anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, in case a new, authoritative revision splits the genera apart again, almost all of the info in this article would be moved to an Indricotherium article. It seems more likely that Dzungariotherium will be split, though, but splitting that off would have little consequence here, as there is little info abut it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review #2[edit]

I'm sorry to repeat this when one was already done, but I found a big issue in the initial check, so... File:Paraceratherium.jpg - This is listed as PD-Old-70, but the death date for G. M. Woodward is not given, so there's no evidence it is. Possibilities:

  • If this was published in the U.S., say so, replace license with {{PD-US-1923}}
  • If it wasn't published in the U.S., find Woodward's death date, show he died over 70 years ago.
  • If neither apply, since it's from 1911, it can be hosted here, on English Wikipedia, but not commons. If moved to here, you must use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{notforcommons}}.

Unfortunately, This blocks promotion to FA.

Other images:

All the above need more documentation to be used.

Two that are fine to use, but which I have notes for:

  • File:Paraceratherium_skull_AMNH.jpg The metalwork can probably be considered incidental, so this passes.
  • File:Paraceratherium herd.jpg Go to the source, flip back two pages, and you'll see a copyright notice. However Looking at [9] we learn that copies of Natural history from before 1927 are out of copyright! So, I've switched the copyright notice to the correct one.
  • File:Paraceratherium restorations 1923.jpg This seems dubious. A single copyright at the front of the book this is published in is enough to make this in-copyright; the licensing isn't documented. Probable copyvio, but could reasonably be used as fair use. Suggest checking to see if the book has been renewed, as {{PD-US-not renewed}} is reasonably likely. FIXED: it's oddly cited, but this is from Natural History. See above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg Insufficient documentation to show sculpture (not just photo) is out of copyright Photo collage Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Paraceratherium outline.jpg - this is a photograph of an apparently modern artwork, and is thus likely copyvio No longer in article, nominated for deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: Lots of problems, I'll see what I can do about documenting the problematic ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Will check later. Doesn't seem like huge problems to me, just a matter of switching out licenses, checking if people are dead, and possibly cropping out armature in a few photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, we can definitely deal with this. I'd say we should be able to salvage at least 80% of this (for example, the last one listed I've already saved. =) ) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Cropped the mounted skull image to hide most of the armature. More later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like Woodward might well be British - the journal the images appeared in was. Annoyingly, there's a more-famous G.M. Woodward who died about a century to be ours; best solution might be to move all his stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find more about him. By the way, Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is not a sculpture, it is a photo collage (made like this[10]), created by the uploader. Not sure if the base photos are selfmade, but I'd say they are different enough from the originals (every shape is changed) to not be considered derivative works. See also: FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A very good photo collage. I think that's acceptable then; since it looks like he sells them, I think it's safe to presume they're licensed if not self-made. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears our G. M. Woodward could either be a descendant of the more famous George Moutard Woodward, with lithography being a family speciality, or that G. M. Woodward turned into a sort of "brand" of a workshop. Will look some more into it. There is a little more info at the side here, ring any bells?: FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the armature silhouette with a famous PD image, and nominated the photo for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • New image is fine. So, by my count, all that's left is the Woodward images. Given the dates, I don't think it'd be a brand or workshop - the "original" Woodward died quite a bit before that kind of practice became common. I could buy descendant, that's certainly common - the Peale family of artist, the Dalziel brothers, the Cruikshanks... Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, hey, I know her sister's work, actually. Alice B. Woodward. So it is a family of biological artists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support We've cleared all issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bingo! So we can be pretty sure it's the same person? Thanks a lot! And I also thought of Alice Woodward (she drew many palaeontological restorations), but wasn't sure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it was all but certain, given the list at that site. I mean, we know from that sample list of works that Gertrude Mary Woodward was an expert anatomical artist specializing in fossil bones. That's a fairly unique specialty. The artworks are signed, so we can compare to other works by her to be sure - she apparently did some of the initial illustrations for the Piltdown Man skull, so...Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is a photoshopped image composed of at least two source images. The providence of these source images and under what license terms they were obtained, is not indicated. Roman Uchytel, who contributed the image to the Russian Wikipedia, claims copyright for the composite image. However, the background is a picture taken by the Rowan family, on one of the visits they made to Ethiopia, and a high resolution version of the image was available from their blog. Tineye has the evidence. I'm not sure that re-using a scenery image as a background crosses the threshold of originality. The image therefore may constitute copyright violation. Samsara 16:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you link to the image in question? That is a pretty long page. In case the background is too similar, I can just paint it white or otherwise alter it enough. Perhaps even a tight crop will do. The important part of the image are the animals, and they seem to be radically modified African rhinos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Found it myself.[12] So what do people think? White background, or close crop with blur effect on the bg photo? Here's an example of the latter, can be blurred and changed further if it is still too close.[13] FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say white would probably look better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright. All are fine with that? Or how about black bg? Works pretty well here:[14] Also, what does that family's page say about photo copyright? Perhaps they use free licenses? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and painted it black, so that it looks more distinct form the drawing under "description". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Science Fiction Quarterly[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Science Fiction Quarterly was one of four science fiction magazines that Louis Silberkleit, later one of the publishers of Archie Comics, published intermittently over a couple of decades. Two sister magazines were Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories; that article was just promoted, and because the publishing history of all these magazines is closely related there is quite a bit of overlap in the text -- I reused big chunks of the publication history section in particular. This is a situation that has occurred before at FAC: for example Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories, which overlap for similar reasons, are both FAs. I don't believe it should cause an problems with the FA criteria, but I wanted to make sure any reviewer is aware of the overlap in case there is a concern there. As for SFQ itself, it was never a leader in its field, but it was a better magazine than would have been expected given the minuscule budget the editors were given. When it died in 1958, it was the end of an era: SFQ was the very last surviving science fiction pulp magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some small inconsistencies in page formatting - FN 5 needs space, FNs 15, 22, 25 should use "pp."
  • Ashley 1976: is this a separate edition or just a reprinting? If the former we need an edition statement, if the latter the origdate explanation needs amending. Same with Atheling. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
All fixed now; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - I've done some copyediting, but feel free to disagree with them; the article could probably use a more thorough copyedit, but I suppose that they all do.
    Your edits look fine to me with one exception. I changed "In each issue of Science Fiction Quarterly, Silberkleit obtained rights to reprint two early science fiction novels and several of Ray Cummings' books for lead stories." to "Science Fiction Quarterly's policy was to reprint a novel in each issue as the lead story, and Silberkleit was able to obtain reprint rights to two early science fiction novels and several of Ray Cummings' books." My original version certainly needed improving, but your version makes it sound as though Silberkleit obtained rights to all these novels in each issue, and also implies that there was a lead novel in every single issue, which wasn't the case. That's why I wanted to retain the word "policy" -- the body of the article explains the exceptions but I think that's too much detail for the lead. Is the latest version OK? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's fine—thank you for checking my edits. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "science fiction magazines" twice in one sentence in the lead
    Copyedited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article said that "Silberkleit's policy was to include a reprinted novel in each issue as the lead story" -- in SFQ or all of his magazines? I've assumed the former, so please fix if this is wrong.
    You're right; I should have made it clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uncomfortable with the casual shortening of "science fiction" to "sf", but I assume you've used that in other FAs.
    I have, and I think some form of abbreviation is needed for variety in the prose, since otherwise some sequences of sentences get very overloaded with "science fiction". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're using semi-colons too much; your sentences can be shortened instead.
    Yes, they're a weakness of mine. I got rid of a couple; let me know if you see any more that you think should be copyedited away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You go back and forth between a lot of names in the second paragragh of "Publishing history", which makes it hard to follow. While I appreciate that you need to be clear who is saying what, can you look into simplifying it, if possible?
    I read through the paragraph, and I think the confusing part is where the story passes to Moskowitz and Wollheim. Silberkleit, Hornig and Lowndes are the main players, and I hope that by the end the reader is clear on their parts, but the other two are bit players. I padded the sentence about Wollheim with some context, which also gave me a chance to mention how he and Lowndes knew each other. Does that improve things? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Could you possibly split that lengthy paragraph? Otherwise I can live with it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Done. Because the long story about how Lowndes got the job takes up the middle of the para, the best I could do was lop a few sentences off the end, but I think it helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, nice work! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the changes! I'm now supporting this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - I've read this through a few times now and it looks good to me. Note: I'd read Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories too, somehow got distracted, and forgot to post to the FAC! This is very similar, but seems improved. The single question I have is whether it might be necessary to explain (very briefly) the difference between a digest and pulp format for readers who don't know? The usual fine work. Love the pics, btw! Victoria (tk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I linked the first appearance of "digest format" to digest size, which I think should help; pulp magazine was already linked. I hope this is enough; it's hard to see how to get an aside about the format into the article, though perhaps it could be done as a note. Yes, the pictures are one of the fun things about these magazines; glad you like them! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Smyth Report[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Smyth Report, the first official administrative history written on the development of the first atomic weapons. The image of the book is that of my own copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN13: this is formatted with the title as a second author
  • FN5: think it would make more sense to cite the Grove foreword specifically here, rather than the report generally
  • Can you double-check publication details for Coleman and Smith? You've given the two the same page range in the same publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. The Wiki-Gnomes tried to use the sfn template for web pages, which doesn't work too well. Fixed.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean here. Groves's forward is on p. v of Smyth, just like it says.
  3. Coleman had the wrong page range. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
Groves, Leslie (1945). "Foreword". In Smyth, Henry DeWolf. Atomic Energy for Military Purposes; the Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1722-9. 
simply for precision. If you'd prefer not to that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

  • In leads in my articles, I've copied a sentence or two from the text without any hesitation ... but I think the following probably won't fly at FAC, with the part in the text coming just three paragraphs after the lead:
  • In the lead: "The Smyth Report served two functions. First, it was to be the official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons. Second, it served as an indicator for other scientists as to what information was declassified. Anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available, such as the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • In the text: "The Report was to serve two functions. First, it was to be the public official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs ... and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons, in particular nuclear fission and the nuclear chain reaction. Second, it served as a barometer for other scientists as to what information was declassified—anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available in declassified literature, such as much of the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • "British Scientific Mission to Manhattan Project": Is that the official title, without the "the"?
    • Not sure. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "easier to imagine unexpected printing problems resulting in himself and his workers returning from summer vacation to find themselves locked out of a plant filled with top secret material": Give that one another shot, please.
    • Broke the sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "had text added paragraph 12.18": not sure what's missing
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Three Beauties of the Present Day[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A well-known colour print by ukiyo-e master Utamaro, dating to c. 1792–93 and featuring three real-life beauties who frequently appeared in his works and the works of others. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Margin1522[edit]

This is my first post on this board, so I will limit it to comments. I think this is a really good article. I like the lead, the images, the analysis, and the conclusion. Some small things that I think might be done to improve it.

  • It seems a bit short on the background. I think a bit more material could be added on bijin-ga as a major genre in ukiyo-e.
    • I've added on line on bijin-ga. Do you think it needs more? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That's good. Maybe more, but we do talk about it later, so maybe this is enough.
  • There are a lot Japanese terms and names, which some readers might have trouble with. For example, we link to sharebon but perhaps we could describe in a few words what kind of books those were.
  • In the sentence "Kyōden was manacled for fifty days, and Tsutaya was penalized half his property.", maybe we could say "the artist" instead of "Kyōden", and "the publisher" instead of "Tsutaya". When I came to "Kyōden", I had to go back and see, who was he again?
  • Is "Tomohisa's" correct? Should that be "Toyohina's"?
  • *Burp* One of those things spellcheck will never catch. Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Tomimoto-bushi article we link to is quite weak. I'll try to see if I can expand it. It was a genre of jōruri, which is a storytelling song. This particular genre was especially refined and popular with rich townspeople and samurai, and she played the accompaniment. If we could add some of that information, I think it might fill out our picture of her, which is shorter than the other two models. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I look forward to seeing what you can do with Tomimoto-bushi. Please don't feel that any nit in the article is too small to pick. I hope you'll be hanging around FAC more—there's been much wringing of hands lately over the lack of reviewers. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Discovering now that the main article on jōruri (music) is also pretty meager. Urk. This may take some research. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm also wondering if there isn't a better term for ōkubi-e than "big-headed pictures". I know it's often translated this way, but it's not that the subjects had big heads, but that the image was a close-up of the head, or upper body actually. Other translations I've seen are are "torso portrait" or "bust portrait", but these don't seem quite right either. Is there some term (Italian?) in art criticism for "upper body portrait"? If not maybe we could just explain again what it was. Also, there were ōkubi-e of kabuki actors before Utamaro. His innovation was to do it for bijin, so maybe that could be clarified. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm partial to "big bust portrait", but everyone keeps shouting me down. If you check out the "Background" section you'll see that ōkubi-e is attributed to Shunshō, and the association is made with yakusha-e. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, that's true, the background section is fine. Also, I finished expanding the Tomimoto-bushi article. I seem to remember seeing a print of Toyohina standing on a veranda and looking like she was teaching the shamisen a child, which would have been nice to add. But I can't remember now where I saw it, or even if it was her. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • One more nit. At Amazon the ISBN for the Yoshida dictionary goes to the 3rd edition. And I'm wondering if 定本 actually means "Revised". It could, but publishers like to put that on dictionaries regardless, just to make it look authoritative. There is a used copy of the 1974 edition on the Amazon page and the cover has 定本 already. Is it not enough to just say 3rd edition? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, that's weird. Worldcat lists three editions with that ISBN—one from 1974, another from 1994, and another undated. A Worldcat search for the title indicates the first edition was in 1944. The thing is, I got the ISBN information right from the book itself—I'm looking at it now, and it clearly says: "Printed in Japan © 1972 Teruji Yoshida 1571—0006—1033 ISBN 4-87364-005-9 C1571 P25000E". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That is strange, but if says so in the book it must be correct. The National Book Network says "If you are revising a book and there is a substantial change of the contents, the book should be assigned a new ISBN. A rule of thumb is that 15-20% of the text or content should change to treat the book as a new edition." So perhaps all of those editions are substantially the same. Or not, I don't know. But the cite gives the year, so there's no doubt as to which edition was consulted. I guess it's OK then, we can't do anything about the ISBN. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Bamse[edit]

Very beautiful article and artwork. Unfortunately I don't have time for a full review. Just a couple of comments...

  • Images need ALT text
  • The sentence Unlike as was common in ukiyo-e, the subjects were not courtesans, but young women known around Edo for their beauty reads quite hard to me. Could perhaps be rephrased/simplified.
  • Might need to decide on AE/BE spelling (e.g. centre, symbolize), but perhaps the -ize are ok in BE (I am not native).
    • It's in Canadian English to maximally frustrate readers. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, I guess fine in this case. bamse (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps spell out what Tamamuraya is (a teahouse?)
    • Not a teahouse—but I can't find a source that says explicitly what it was, other than being in Yoshiwara. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • There were teahouses in Yoshiwara, and visits always started there. [Here] is one description (in Japanese). The place where she worked probably had a teahouse in front where visitors would wait to be ushered into an inner entertainment room. This is all too complicated to explain, so I just added "house" to "the Tamamuraya house". "Pleasure house" would sound like a brothel, which it wasn't exactly. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the clarification & the link. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the clarification. I personally don't care, but is there a MOS issue with the doubling of -ya + house (I assume -ya is 屋)? bamse (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
          • There are articles with "Naninani-ji temple" in them. I think the helpfulness of such a construction far outweighs the redundancy—it's not confusing, inelegant, or misleading, and dropping the "ya" from the name is not (at least in this case) an option. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am confused by: was the first time in ukiyo-e history that the beauties were drawn from the general urban population rather than the pleasure quarters. From the first part of the article my understanding was that these beauties were from the pleasure quarter, no?
    • Toyohisa worked in Yoshiwara, but the other two were teahouse girls (some sources describe them as "看板娘") and worked oustide the pleasure quarters. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. bamse (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As testimony to the popularity of the three models, the three models often appeared in the works of other aritsts. Should be rephrased to get rid of the two "three models".
  • Article could probably be added to a few more categories (e.g. bijin-ga).
  • Perhaps link "impression" to Printmaking in the infobox to avoid confusion.
    • I've changed "impression" to "printing". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK. bamse (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, at least in Western prints, "impression" = individual copy. "Printing" or "edition" are for groups, or "State (printmaking)" for groups showing a particular point in a changing work. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For consistency you might want to add more information in some of the image captions (e.g. which Museum, year...).
    • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. bamse (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I must say I don't really like adding the collections - it takes too much space, and encourages people to think they are unique objects, which many will, despite being told. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
          • You're right; I've kept the dates and dropped the museums. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • bamse (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just one more thing...

  • Under "Portraits of the three Kansei beauties by Utamaro", you might want to swap Hisa with Kita in order to (a) have the same position of the beauties as in the main image and (b) not having them face to the border of the screen. bamse (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

Generally there, but:

  • "Her clothes and hairstyle are in the showier style of a geisha compared to the plainer, teahouse-girl garments of the other two models..." I must say they all look identical to me. If there is a difference it needs explaining.

Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a page where you can see the difference. The image is at the top (1781~1789) is a bit earlier and the hairstyle isn't quite as elaborate. The 2nd and 3rd from the top (1789~1801) are exactly this period. The 2nd is a geisha, and her kinono has more layers. The 3rd is a tea house girl, and she has a simpler kimono. The hairstyles of all 3 models are really elaborate -- it says Utamaro wasn't exaggerating, this was real. But the geisha's is a bit taller and has more ornaments. The ornaments make the difference. Perhaps we could say "ornamental hairstyle" and "elegant kimono" about Toyohina. But it's true, I can't see calling any of those hairstyles simple. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
But all these 3 seem to have exactly the same styles and ornaments. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
One lacks the comb, but I don't know if that's significant. The kimono are different, but you're right, the hairstyles are very similar. Instead of talking about the differences, maybe we should try to find out the name of this hairstyle and why teahouse girls were wearing it in the first place. I think that's pretty remarkable. It might be a characteristic of this period. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
If you mean the top one, I thought that was just the angle of vision - there's a little bit coming out of the back at right, similar to the other two. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There are other details that distinguish Toyohina's hairstyle if you're willing to cross your eyes and hold it up to the light, but anyways I may have misinterpreted the source: it compares their clothes, and along the way says "派手な芸者髷を結わせ" to describe Toyohina's hair, but doesn't explicitly compare her hair to that of the other two—just the clothes: "家つきの娘らしいやや地味な着物を着せて、それぞれの身分の違いを描くことに務めている". I've tweaked it, dropping reference to the hair. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - the top one has a plain kimono and the other two patterns, but I won't argue the toss with sources on historical Japanese women's fashion (do we have articles on any of this stuff - I doubt it). Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
On the hairstyle, I have expanded the article on Shimada (hairstyle) so that now it explains the style that all 3 models are wearing and slightly reworded Toyohina's description to point to it. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "confections"? Not really an English word for food, is it? In the UK we have "confectionary" aka "sweets" = "candy" in the US. If that is the title they use, then you are stuck with it, but in the text something understandable should be used.
    • I see "confection" with the same meaning in a couple of dictionaries (and Wiktionary), but now that I see "sweet" is part of the definition, it's not really the best translation of 菓子, which includes salty snackfoods. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll sort this out tomorrow. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • For now, I've substituted in "snacks", though somehow it doesn't seem right ... dictionaries seem to favour "sweets", "confectioneries", "candies", or even "cakes" (!), which I think any Japanese speakers here will agree is not right (ja:菓子 describes kashi as 甘味や塩味など "sweet, salty, etc.") Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • See my comment in Bamse's section. This print has two states & that should probably be used & linked. You might also link this there, as it mentions no Japanese prints at present. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
About why the later state lacks the names, another explanation I have seen is that the bakufu cracked down on these frivolous prints and forbade printing the names of models. I wonder if any of the sources mention that. Censorship seems like a more plausible explanation than that they moved away. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Plausible, although none of my sources suggest so—the "moved away" one is the only one I've seen, and only in the one source, and even then only put forth as a conjecture. It would be difficult to determine anyways, given that the different states are undated (even the original is only estimated at 1792–93). Of course, if a source turns up that says anything like that, it'll have to be added. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I found a reference and mentioned it on the Talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I left a response there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately sourced and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Support I think the page is there now, after the discussions, which I followed, above. More please. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony Hawk's Underground[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Todd said he wanted something big. This is it."

When asked, this is what I unfailingly name as my favorite video game of all time: it's got magically addictive gameplay, a killer soundtrack, a park editor that still hasn't been replicated, a set of diverse and very alive level maps, and probably the deepest, most relatable plot ever featured in an extreme sports game. Way back in the summer of 2006, when I was 11, this game introduced me to numerous rock bands I still dig, on top of the entire genre of rap. In other words, it was predictable by all estimates that I would pick this article up as a project, and I'm now ready to take it across the final border. I'm especially proud of this article in particular being brought here, as it would be the first FA (it's currently the only GA) in the Tony Hawk series, which is represented unusually poorly among Wikipedia's recognized content considering its popularity.

(There may be some issues with Sonic X '​s review not having officially closed yet; it was promoted this afternoon. If so, please be patient until it's all fixed up.) Tezero (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from URDNEXT[edit]

Support as I believe the article is in such state that demonstrates Wikipedia's best work. I'll be making some comments throughout the next few days. URDNEXT (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

It's exciting to see a different kind of game at FAC. I'll start reviewing the prose in a few days; I just wanted to mention a concern about comprehensiveness. The development section is quite short, especially for a game with such a high profile. Have you tapped every available online source—GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, etc.? I'll have a look through my magazines to see if there's anything relevant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

JimmyBlackwing, I just found one article by GameSpot and one by GameSpy with a couple of useful snippets (they weren't focused on the development), but other than that, yeah, I've been disappointed with the paucity of development coverage. Please do look, though. And thanks; I generally work outside WP:VG's tradition of games that are critically acclaimed but often unknown and poor-selling, usually JRPGs or artsy indies - not that I don't enjoy those in my personal life (fun fact: I learned about BioShock and TWEWY years ago by perusing our FA list, and they're now among my favorite games ever made). One consequence of this is that there isn't a whole lot to use as a template when one's writing about a skateboarding game, but I think I pulled this one off pretty well. Tezero (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
My magazines had surprisingly little of use: just a two-page article in EGM 172 (November 2003) with a few interesting quotes. Apparently, there was a cover story on the game in Game Informer June 2003, which I don't own—check with User:Surachit. Also found a short interview on 1UP and a longer one on CVG, which should beef up the Dev section a bit. It's strange that the development of a major game had so little coverage. I guess the press was burnt out on the Tony Hawk series by this point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
These are becoming quite the helpful hands; thank you! (I figured out my charger's fine; I was just connected to a terminal that wasn't plugged in.) Tezero (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing, I've worked everything in and it's looking rather spiffy now. Have you got any prose complaints other than the lack of information on the sequel, which I'll fix once I've read more about it? Tezero (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see that they were useful. I haven't actually checked out the prose yet. My schedule is packed right now, so expect to see me again in a few days. Thought it would be a good idea to eliminate any 1b issues ahead of time. One last thing for now: I found a source earlier ([15]) that might add a sentence or two to the Promotion and release subsection. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading this one—After the Sequel was a fun article and an easy review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Added that. See ya around. Tezero (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Sorry for the delay, looks better now, Tezero :). I'll support as soon as JimmyBlackwing's concerns are resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

Support: A great article that very much deserves to be the first Tony Hawk FA. Kudos to Tezero for pushing through a truly nightmarish review; I would probably have quit Wikipedia if I was in his shoes. My reputation as the VG Reviewer from Hell undoubtedly has grown over the past week. However, thanks to Tezero's work, the final product has set a very high bar for articles about extreme sports video games. Hopefully the rest of the nom is smoother—I can't imagine that any nit has gone unpicked by now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Image and source review from ProtoDrake[edit]

I've looked at the image licenses and they seem in order. The sources all seem to hold up from a look through them. I'll give this article a Support on that count, and on the article as a whole. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I know that I have come late to this review and please mark my words I have read through the whole article, and I see next to nothing wrong with the prose side of things so I'll support this transition from GA to FA. I have left what I found to be negligible below. Aha, I used to love this game when I was a kid. Best of luck, Jaguar 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • In the Soundtrack section the paragraph breaks off with "The songs are as follows:" - would this be a wise thing to say as the track listing is collapsed?
  • Good point. Removed. Tezero (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ""The mobile version was released worldwide in 2004" - what month?
  • January. Fixed. Tezero (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

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

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

I'll be on vacation from October 22 till November 2 2014. I anticipate having no internet access during this time, though I will endeavour to respond to any concerns that have been raised at this nomination as soon as possible once I return. Freikorp (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose from Dank[edit]

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

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

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

Well, most of those problems seem taken care of, so I've collapsed to make some room. I can still wish for content from that Buckland source, but I've only been able to track down excerpts on line. Pedantically, that's a mark against being a comprehensive literature review, but if it gets down to that being my only objection, I won't hold it against the article; FACR does not quite demand perfection, after all! Some of the references for things like DVD release dates aren't sites that I'd consider RS for broader purposes, but there's a longstanding tradition of tolerance for those sorts of relatively trivial, bare-fact details (and it is a tradition I've benefited from myself). Sourcing looks much better across the board at this point.

  • The "Milla's Tale" reference isn't cited adequately. What you've pointed at is Milla Jovovich republishing an article from a periodical on her website. We can, I think, AGF regarding the fidelity of the reprint. But, importantly, Harpers & Queen is the periodical title (so needs to be styled in italics). And Sara Buys should be credited as the author.
  • Moving on from sources, is there a reason this article doesn't fair use in an image from The Circles of Power? The screenshot used in here even has a FUR that explains it is being used to highlight the influence and comparison, and the other article uses both for that reason. It's a topic clearly discussed in the prose, so I would think a FUR there would be no problem at all.
    • No particular reason. Before I started overhauling The Fifth Element that image was the only one there, whereas the other article had both. Do you think it is acceptable for FAC to format the two pictures in the same manner they are formatted at the other article? It bothers my OCD that the two pictures are not even sizes, and they do take up a rather large chunk of space when set together the way that they are. Freikorp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't do it exactly like it's currently done in the other article, no. Since the Circles image is more vertical, perhaps resize them to a consistent width and display them stacked in a column? I'm uncertain, but I do think we do the readers a disservice when we talk about the visual similarity between the two works, but then only illustrate half of that comparison. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll try to get back here in the near future for a more thorough prose review, but I caught one issue quickly:
  • From Plot, "The current Mondoshawan contact": This implies that Vito Cornelius is a Mondoshawan. Rather, consider "The Mondoshawan's current contact" or something to that end.

References are in a better place than they were previously. No official stance on the prose until I get some more time with the article, but striking my opposition; I am neutral on promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hiya. Sorry to bother you but i'm a bit anxious to get this passed. Were my previous edits enough to gain your support, or have you noticed more things that need work? :) Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to get time for a prose read in the next couple of days. Don't feel anxious! This is still really high up on the FAC page. There's plenty of time (and there ought to be more reviewers) before the coordinators evaluate promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Edgepedia[edit]

  • This (could) be my first film article that I've reviewed, so please treat these as suggestions:
    • There appears to me too much blue in the lead. No sure why Earth and taxicab is blue, and we have science fiction action film and special forces major.
    • Plot: In the first paragraph "a Great Evil" seems wrong - surely grammatically it's either the Great Evil or a great evil? I can see what you're trying to say, but perhaps this can be re-phrased?
    • Themes: The quote: "echoe[d] stereotypical beliefs about gender"; don't you mean echo[ed] - i.e. you've added an 'ed'?
      • The original source said 'echoes'. Come to think of it it doesn't need to be passed tense, so i've changed it to 'echoes'. Freikorp (talk)
    • Production: "Besson envisioned the entire world...". Is 'entire' overkill? My brief glance at the source didn't justify it - surely he made up something during the film's development?
    • Effects: Does "20 feet" need conversion? e.g. {{convert|20|ft}} -> 20 feet (6.1 m)
    • Release:
      • Initial Screening: You have a repetition -> 100,000 square feet 100,000 square feet (9,300 m2). Does square feet really need linking?
      • "Gaumont spent between $1 million and $3 million"; I assume you mean US$ (As Cannes is in France it's not obvious as it is in the next paragraph).
        • Added wikilink to US Dollar. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Critical response and legacy: percent, per cent or %? (see WP:PERCENT). Also, in the same section "million euros in damages and interest and 2–5%".
      • Changed all variations to 'percent' for consistency. Freikorp (talk)
  • Books do not need an accessdate, as long as you've given the edition. See refs 8, 11, 13, 16, 31, 46, 55 (I may have missed some).
    • I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Removed. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Thanks so much for reviewing. Please let me know if I haven't addressed any concern adequately enough. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. just following this up. Were my replies to your concerns adequate for you to support the nomination, or are there further concerns that you would like me to address? :) Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Freikorp, got your message on my talk page; unfortunately, I'm going to be busy travelling for the rest of October, so the time I have limited. However, I have had a chance to watch the DVD over the last week and I have a couple of a minor points:
      • When I was watching I never heard the evil planet thing being referred to as the "Great Evil". The sleeve notes call this "a planet-sized sphere of supreme evil" and the "Making of ..." special feature calls it a "dark and powerful force of evil". When I read it I though that the "Great Evil" (with capitals) was named as such. Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to lose the capital letters!
      • My DVD sleeve notes say most of the events take place in 2257 (The fifth element (Liner notes). Pathé. 1997. P8920DVD. ). I can find sources on the internet for 2263, such as this one published in 2009; however by 2007 we have the 2263 date in the article and perhaps someone looked it up on wikipedia! Does this date come from elsewhere? Edgepedia (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, it's interesting that it says 2257 in the dvd sleeve; 2263 is taken from the film itself. When Korben wakes up from his 'nightmare', you can see the time and date on his alarm clock. 2:00am 18 March 2263. The alarm clock clearly comes into focus at exactly the 16 minute and 58 second mark (at least on my iTunes copy of the film). Not sure what to do about these conflicting primary sources, i'm happy to leave it as it is but maybe we could just give an estimated date, describing the date as the mid 23rd century of something? Freikorp (talk)
PS: Can I echo Squeamish's "don't be anxious" – it took two months of my first FA to pass! The article is now a lot better than when I last looked at it! Edgepedia (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry to be on your case about it, maybe I should switch to decaf lol. Freikorp (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Edgepedia. Just a friendly reminder about the review and also letting you know i'll be on vacation myself from 22 October until 2 November. I anticipate having no internet access on vacation (probably a good thing lol) so if you comment during this time I may not respond. Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

The proposer also asked me nicely to look again at this article. I have read it through from scratch and will be happy to support it again once the following points have been addressed:

  • Lead: It has been called the best and worst summer blockbuster of all time. I suggest "it has been called both the ..." as later in the article, to make it clearer that it is not one reaction being referred to.
  • Plot: divorcee: I don't see the relevance of mentioning this. It is presumably added to the script to explain why Dallas is living in a batchelor pad with a cat, but it plays no part in the plot or the rest of the film.
  • Effects: proprietary software: the wikilink refers to the difference between closed- and open-source software, but the reference is referring to Digital Domain's use of standard (including closed-source) packages as well as its own in-house software (that is my understanding of page 60 of the reference, not something I "know"). I think it will be clearer if we say "in-house software" here, or remove the wikilink
  • Soundtrack: The Fifth Element is amongst Besson's films that have been described as "intrinsically musical": this reads a bit clumsily, please rephrase, perhaps: "The Fifth Element is one of Besson's films which have been described as "intrinsically musical";" or say "among" instead of "amongst"

In this edit I have corrected the punctuation in "mixed or average reviews" and tweaked some source spacing for consistency. --Mirokado (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • All issues addressed. Thanks so much for your review. Hopefully the nomination will pass this time :). Freikorp (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick!

  • In the update to Soundtrack: Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software was used by Digital Domain...: need another comma and "were" here: "Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software, were used by Digital Domain..."

Supporting now. Good luck with the proposal. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Referencing errors

  • There are lots of errors in the format of the references. Refs 28, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46, 47, 50, 57, 58, 50, 92 and 103 are not linked to the bibliography correctly. Also ref 46 says "Bowen 1991", ref 34 "Brown 1999" and some refs have "Hanbury Brown". Can you check them. User:Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Maury, if you install Ucucha's script to check for errors in Harvard references, it'll highlight such problems in red - makes searching and fixing them a lot easier. GermanJoe (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
All fixed.Another useful script! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions need copyediting
  • File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, can you please be specific what captions need what copyediting? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lead caption needs a hyphen; Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion; RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated; generally overusing the word "ample" in captions; Mk III is a bit clunky, as is Dowdy; magnetron needs conversion; Mk VI and the first Displays image have grammar issues; generally inconsistent in the use of "wingtip" vs "wing tip". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"Lead caption needs a hyphen" - it does? Where?
"Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion" - hyphen where? 6.7m is not an actual measure, its referring to the frequency band.
"RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated" - how so.
Maybe you should just make these changes? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Reviewers are not required or expected to edit candidate articles. At the moment there are 49 articles on the list, often there are more. There is a shortage of editors prepared to review FACs and there would be fewer if we asked them to do this. Sometimes reviewers will be generous with their time and talents and copy edit candidates. But this is a bonus that should not be requested. User:Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
But I am honestly at a loss as to how to address these issues. Most of them I don't really understand. What should I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For conversions see Template:Convert which is already used in the article. Generally, the image legends are way too wordy and are causing some problems such as the redundant "This image shows...". Check for compound adjectives like "Mk. IV equipped Beaufighter" which should be "Mk. IV-equipped Beaufighter". User:Graham Beards (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't convert wavelengths; they are like boat classes, 5.5 meter boats are not 5.5 meters long nor is a 5.5 meter boat an 18 foot boat. Even US sources measure them in metric units. The other two are completed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've not received any specific input on the captions, so I've edited every-but-one for brevity. I left the physical layout description as-is because I think it's key to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


  • I've reviewed all of the changes that Maury's made since the last nomination and am satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note - Please check that the use of bold type as in "This led to Hanbury Brown's work on the Mark IVA" conforms with the manual of style. And, I'm still concerned about the image captions; as they stand some will require citations. I was alluding to this above when I commented on the length of the captions. User:Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I bold terms if they are the titles objects of the sub-section they appear in, or alternate names for the same. This is so that links to those sub-sections appear as fully-formed sub-articles. Is this not correct? As to the captions, can you be super-specific as to the ones you'd like to see addressed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


A large article with many technical aspects and units, difficult to get right. I've read most of the way through and found it fairly heavy going.
Frankly I'm not sure all the convert tags add or hinder clarity.
Unit conversions are a requirement, they were not the problem. Lots of figures in a technical article is unavoidable but they can be controlled (does the reader need to know the exact values?).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

*Lead, word repetition, 'development' used twice in the second sentence, 'Early development'? Perhaps just 'development would be better.

Indeed, fixed.

*'On the "Beau"' seems too informal.

Fair enough, fixed.

*Luftwaffe is not linked (first instance), also 'altitude'.

Fixed and fixed.
  • '1.5 m wavelength (~193 MHz)', what is 'm'? Metres? What is MHz?
Yes and yes...
Great, though looking at it again wavelength or metre wavelength would be a better link.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I went with option 2, simply because I think it looks better.
  • None of the many persons and establishments mentioned in this article feature in the lead. There is room for a fourth paragraph.
Hmmm, that's an interesting thought! Ok, let me know what you think of the addition.
Much better, there is a grammar problem (missing 'to'?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Took me a while to find that! Fixed.
  • The image captions are lengthy and would benefit from wikilinking the objects and people in them (Hurricane, Heyford, Bawdsey Manor, Dowding etc).
Done, but I did not do the wikilinking because that's better in the body imho.
It's very common practise in Featured Articles to repeat wikilinks of objects, people and places in image captions, it is encouraged. Moon is a good example. With a long article people tend to read the lead (which should summarise the whole article), the infobox and wikilinked captions. Looking for the object links in the body text is inconvenient and frustrating, especially if there is no link there. Your call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've never liked it but who am I to argue with the MOS?! I'll work these in over the next couple of days. Actually, done!

*More word repetition, 'Henry Tizard, whose Tizard Committee... How about Henry Tizard, whose Committee...?

Could 'had to be moved from aircraft to aircraft for testing' become 'had to be moved between aircraft for testing'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

*Mixed tenses 'its Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines had a well-insulated ignition system which give off minimal electrical noise.' 'Gave off' perhaps?

Fixed - that one was aggressive auto-correct.
  • Aircraft serial numbers should be italicised as it is effectively their name (MOS:ITALIC), aviation project convention which follows the ship examples.
Still a few remaining in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking... can you point them out? I must be blind... ok I think I got them all now.
  • None of the footnotes are cited, some refer to pages in used references but they need citations as used in the text.
Sorry, I missed this first time around. Actually you cannot use linked FN's in notes, at least I'be never managed it. The template-in-the-ref appears to drive the parser nuts.
A technical problem that could probably be resolved with help, I avoid all templated referencing formats myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no 'See also' section or navbox for related subjects.
Any suggestions? I rarely add these to my articles - laziness, not any dislike of them.
Yes, Air warfare of World War II, History of Radar, Radar in World War II and European theatre of World War II are four subjects that readers might like to visit. A navbox could be produced linking World War II airborne radar types from Category:World War II radars, divided into nationality groups.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any mention of this system or the development of AI in the Flight magazine online archives (exhaustion of sources)?
I'll never know... at least until Flight changes their search engine to something created this century. Try a search on the topic, and you'll see what I mean. The ones that are in here are generally the most complete histories, written by the people actually involved. Some of these required me to contact the original authors as copies were not available on this side of the pond. I also had to develop an algo to convert Bowen's page numbers for Google Books, because mine is a different copy and I want to make sure I was pointing people to an available source. Although here are some "review" sources, like White and Zimmerman, I've found that every other source I looked at (there were dozens) were essentially clipped versions of these. White, for instance, largely follows Bowen, while Zimmerman does more compare-and-contrast. Generally I'm not sure there is much more out there, I spent maybe two months collecting resources and discarded the majority during the process. Consider this for instance, which is largely content-free, yet uses many of the same images!
I found the same page and a few others, it is laden with facts, is a reliable source and can be cited (provides another source that readers can read online).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an oversize image of a DH Mosquito to illustrate its antenna, could it be edited to crop and highlight this feature and show it at normal thumb size?
I was convinced to leave this one larger specifically because a previous reviewer complained that there was no reason for all images to be thumb size and that making this one larger would improve the article. I think I agree with the logic, so I'm inclined to leave this one as is.
Disagree with that logic and it remains your call, it looks odd to me apart from not clearly illustrating the detail it is supposed to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

*Why were the large windows of the Avro Anson a benefit for testing? I couldn't immediately find it in the adjacent text, just curious.

Because the Anson found itself mostly used for ASV development and testing minimum range of the AI sets. Both tasks required the operators to look out once the radar's minimum range had been reached, and large windows always help in that regard.
Struck as the claim has been removed, appeared to be editor opinion without cited mention in the text. Surely the crews would be squinting out of the windscreen looking dead ahead for their tracked target? Perhaps that aspect needs clarifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of points and questions but all aimed at improving the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Does any of this equipment exist in physical form in museums? Are there images available (or a Commons link to an airborne radar equipment category)? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(let me know if I missed any... maybe re-start the list for clarity?) Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All fixed Nimbus! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, my replies are missing, I still have the edit conflict window open and will leave the PC on overnight! WP software could do with an upgrade to show that the other person is typing as Facebook does in live chat. I will try to sort it out tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Added missing edit conflict comments. If you sign with four tildes after each comment we will know who is commenting. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarity I'm going to restart the list. I think I have addressed everything except:

  1. Still looking for advice on cites-in-notes.
  2. The Flight example has a single mention of AI, in passing. I see nothing in this article that suggests it should be included for any reason. I'm hesitant to add links for the sake of adding links. Am I missing you intension here?
  3. As to images, I have discussed the matter with several people. The only person that had a good image of the Pye strip refused to release under a CC-ish licence. Norman Groom released all his images under CC-by-SA, but because he didn't use the specific terminology "CC-by-SA" it has been refused, and now he won't have anything more to do with the Wiki Commons as a result. The RAF Museum does not appear to have a Mk IV, nor the Duxford Radio Society.
  4. Anything else I missed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment (point 1)

  • Check out the notes in Death on the Rock. I have no experience with this particular style, but seems like this article uses your reference style with slightly reformatted footnotes. GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The gurus on the Village Pump sent me in the right direction. All the notes are now properly reffed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note I believe all the issues raised in this and previous FACs have now been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw (1831)[edit]

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

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

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

  • Welcome back to FAC, Halibutt. The writing is generally well-organized and lively. I read quickly down to Opposing forces and fixed some things, but my suggestion is that someone proficient should read through the whole thing looking for obvious language problems. Some examples:
  • "who has been deposed of Polish throne": who had been deposed from the Polish throne
  • "sympathy towards ... the Polish question": "Support for ... Polish independence" would be better.
  • "considered it but an experiment": old-fashioned "but"
  • "Warsaw would hold out at least several weeks of siege": "hold out at least several weeks" is fine; "hold out at least several weeks of siege" is not. "hold out for" or "hold out at least several weeks under a siege" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read through the article. I included most of your remarks in my recent edit, except for the sympathy thing. The problem was that the news of the battle did not incite any real *support* for the cause of Polish independence. It incited sympathy, plenty of nice gestures towards the people promoting the Polish question, but not really any support. Any ideas as to how to better put that down? //Halibutt 07:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What kinds of gestures? Being specific is generally the way to handle these kinds of problems. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Unwatching ... I pointed to some problems and gave an assessment, and that's all I've got time for. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Partial image check[edit]

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

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks for taking the time to look at all of the images.

      • File:General Staff of Polish Army during November Uprising.JPG - good spotting! I corrected the description. In any way, the author died in 1899, so we're safe here.
      • File:Wojna polsko rosyjska 1830-1831 plan umocnień Warszawy.jpg - I believe the description is 100% correct: it's a 19th century plan *published* in a 1930 work. I updated the link to on-line library where the 1930 book can be viewed (it's in Public Domain), but other than that I'm not sure what else could be improved here. As to the Polish pre-war copyright, the tag indeed says photography, but the law mentions "works" most of the time. Chapter III, Article 21 says explicitly: The copyright expires 50 years after publishing the work, or making it public for the first time. The same term is applied to anonymous and pseudonymous works, unless their creator disclosed his authorship. The copyright to photographs, or works created in a way similar to photography, expires in 10 years from the creation; copyright on cinematographic works - in 20 years from their creation; to mechanical reproductions of musical pieces - in 20 years. So, regardless whether we look at the 1830s original or the 1930 reproduction, it's PD. Plain and simple. Anyway, as the source is a collection of maps and pictures of various formats, there's no "page number" as such, I added the sketch number. Not sure what else could be done to improve the image description.
      • File:Plan Nicholsona.jpg I couldn't find the full name or dates for the engraver, but I did find the author. I added a creator template (and created a stub on him as well). And you're right, if the engraver was active in 1830, then there's little chance he lived past 1914. Especially that we're bound by the 1830 publication date, not by the birth date of the engraver.
      • File:Ramparts of Warsaw 1831.jpg - see my comment above. It *is* a photograph (or rather it falls into the "works created in a way similar to photography" category as a photographic reproduction of a 2D document). But the copyright dates back to the documents creation in 1830, not to the 1930 publication (and even if, it's still well past expiry date). Oh, and the link works for me. Could you please explain what is it that you see when you click it?
      • File:5th,_6th,_7th_Infantry_Regiment_of_Polish_Army_of_November_Uprising.JPG - I located the source. It took ages, but it's there. And I even located the source the anonymous author of the litograph used for his work :)
      • File:Russian_assault_on_Wola_redoubt_1831.JPG - removing for now until I find the page number and all the necessary details.
      • File:Sowinski.jpg - could you explain how is this relevant here? According to Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, the URAA "restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works if that work was still copyrighted in the foreign source country on the URAA date". Which means it *would* restore the copyright to the painting in the US if it was still copyrighter in Poland. Also, I corrected the date to 1922.[19]
      • File:Life-Guards Volhynian Regiment in 1830 - original.jpg - I uploaded the original, I didn't know it had the colours changed, thanks for pointing that out. Not sure if it's really that important, but I'll switch to the original in the article just in case. //Halibutt 11:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

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

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

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

Hey, good to see you back at FAC, Squeamish. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, a year has passed and now I see clearly why I stick to {{Sfn}} these days... It's cleaner and simpler. We'll stick to the system we have here already though, converting it might take ages and wouldn't really add much value, would it. As to specific issues:
    • I sorted the refs by author, all should be nice now.
    • ISBN 13 with hyphenation is preferred, but hard to come by these days. Not even the National Library of Poland uses proper hyphenated ISBN 13. I'll try to add as many OCLC numbers as possible.
    • I use "various authors" only in really hopeless cases, where there are a couple dozen authors and listing the most important and "" is not possible. We have two great examples here: "Powstanie Listopadowe" (Józef Lachowski, ed.) has... 45 authors listed. Same for "Mała encyklopedia wojskowa" ("Small military encyclopaedia"): the list of authors is several pages long and listing all of them would neither do this article any good nor make finding the right book any easier. I would really appreciate any suggestions here.
    • Modified all retrieval dates as per your suggestion
    • Indeed, Rostocki was incomplete. I initially wanted to use only the excerpt published in a scientific journal, but the full book is good as well.
    • Yeah, probably some got translated because it was around midnight when I was adding them while others were not because it was after 3AM :) Now seriously, the problem is that I used {{cite encyclopedia}} for some refs instead of {{cite book}}. And the earlier does not support translating the name of the publication for some reason. I converted some of the encyclopedia to Cite_book format and provided the trans_title parametre.
I hope all the issues you raised are fixed now. //Halibutt 20:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Still some oddness about sort order. Sometimes you seem to sort by editor, sometimes not. "Jednoróg", alphabetized by editor; Balzac et le monde slave. not. It's not just the ones with no specific author that are sometimes sorted by editor either. Przewodnik po polach bitew wojny polsko-rosyjskiej 1830-1931 r. is also done that way.
  • Regarding ISBNs, [20] is one of my most-frequently used bookmarks.
  • You generally only need one identifier number per source, choosing the "best" of them. So, for books with an ISBN, you don't need to also include LCCNs and OLs. Otherwise, nice work getting identifiers for most of these. Just missing Powstanie Listopadowe now, I believe, and I'll see if I can't help with that.
  • It is OCLC 739084724 for the downloadable archive material (which will need a format entry in the reference), or 35594683 for the original book. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me see what I can do for the "various authors" problem.
  • For the Mała Encyklopedia Wojskowa, check to see if the specific article you are citing has its own author byline (some encyclopedias do, some don't). If this one does, that's the only author you need; if it doesn't, you are fine to just cite the editor.
  • I'm pretty confident that you can exclusively attribute Powstanie Listopadowe to its editor, also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Translation consistency looks better at least on a cursory glance.
  • Need to check when you link things in the references. I see Rzeczpospolita is linked in Nieuważny, but not at its first appearance in Kraj. I always hate raising this issue, because it's such a pain to manage; this problem (and there might be others, I didn't check closely) are probably an artifact of alphabetization.
  • Is a reliable source? Its copyright is to Российская Империя (Russian Empire). That's clearly not a government copyright (as there hasn't been a Russian Empire since 1917), so I assume it's a private company operating under that name. Now, I most certainly am not fluent in Russian, but I can't find anything like an About page or editorial policy.
Responding somewhat. Let me see what I can do about lending a hand with a couple of these source-format issues, since they're being tricky. Still have some concerns, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks a lot for your help. As to specific issues:

  • I verified the sort order and now all positions are sorted by whatever name comes first (be it editor, author or corporate entity). That should do the trick I believe
  • ISBNs - I tried using another ISBN converter before but it crashed on most non-American books. Thanks for the link mate, I'll treasure it :)
  • Thanks for finding the "Powstanie listopadowe" oclc. As to "Mała Encyklopedia Wojskowa", I'll settle for Bordziłowski (ed.), it would be much easier.
  • Linking things within references is indeed a pain in the back, especially that some people chose not to link anything there, others link everything (authors, journals, publishers, even places). I wonder what's the best practice here. BTW, I corrected the Rzeczpospolita link you mentioned.
  • I got rid of completely. It was just a quick reference to prove that the medal did indeed exist, but since we already have pics of it on commons there's no need for external pages for that. I replaced rusempire with a more reliable ref.

//Halibutt 22:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Inclining to Oppose Comment – this is a very long article, and is on the wrong side of the MoS guideline WP:SIZERULE. A quick look at some existing FAs on battles shows Austerlitz at 51kb, Blenheim at 65kb, Vimy Ridge at 77kb and Hastings at 60kb. This one weighs in at 114kb. Sometimes there is good reason for a very long article, but to my (layman's) eye this is not so different from other battles as to need twice as many words. The prose is fine, give or take the odd false title, but there is simply too much of it. – Tim riley talk 08:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I took a look at your examples and I believe there is a significant difference between them and this article. With the exception of Hastings all were promoted long, long time ago, some as far back as 2006, when article size limit had real, practical reasons as users with dial-up connection were still a sizeable group. These days it's no longer an issue. Plus, all the articles you mentioned are relatively simple cases: either one-day engagements or simple battles, with little or no relevant political background. In the case of Warsaw 1831 it's impossible to tell the story without explaining the political negotiations that ultimately decided the outcome of the three day long battle.
Anyway, WP:SIZE is all about readable prose size, not just mere size of the file (with all the HTML code, reference templates, automatically converted units, footnotes and such). And the article is only 70 kB of readable prose in size, not 114. You got the 114 kB because the article is actually much better sourced than the ones you mentioned. :) While it's still a little above the 60kB benchmark, I believe the larger size is justifiable by the complexity of the topic. If you really believe this would make the article better, we could try to shorten the Background and Initial clashes sections. That way the article would be just under 50kB of readable prose. However, I'm not sure the readers would actually benefit from that. Let me know what you think. //Halibutt 00:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Having no expertise in the subject of battles, I accept Halibutt's assurance that this length is necessary, and will not press my reservations to the point of opposing FA for this article,

Comment: On the length question, the actual wordcount is 11,726 as of now (9,174 devoted to battle and aftermath). This is rather longer than usual for featured articles, although they have tended to get longer in recent years. I accept the nominator's view that this was a highly significant battle and that the political background and negotiations are important to the context; I don't think, however, that sufficient attention has been given here to economy of expression. Comprehensive does not mean exhaustive – part of the skill of writing a summary encyclopedia article is the ability to select the salient facts and to express them concisely. The writing in this article seems to be somewhat overdetailed, for example: "Prądzyński met with Paskevich at the outskirts of Wola at 3:00 on 7 September. Prądzyński asserted the Russian commander, that 'Krukowiecki and the Polish nation are willing to return to under the rule of Nicholas'. Paskevich in turn proclaimed a cease-fire and invited Krukowiecki to meet him in person at 9:00. The meeting, held in the village tavern of Wola, was far from amicable." I think that the essence of this information could be conveyed much more succinctly. This is, I stress, just one example of the overdetailing which is prevalent in the article.

Although I have only skim-read it, I did note a few odd words or expressions. "Conservatist" is surely a made-up word ("conservative"?); a "forcible march" is presumably a "forced march"; "a complete project of an act of unconditional surrender" makes no sense at all to me – perhaps it means "proposals for an unconditional surrender"? I am fairly sure a detailed read-through would bring further examples of this sort to light, but the length of the article somewhat deters me from a detailed review of the prose. I fully appreciate the diligence with which his article has been prepared, but I think you should reconsider your justification of the article's length and seek ways of trimming it. Such a step would improve both its readability and reviewability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: thanks for stopping by. Back in the good old days we had plenty of people willing to help with polishing the prose, listing incomprehensible parts and such. Nowadays the number of Wikipedians who actually contribute to historical articles written by others is much smaller and the backlog in all peer review projects has grown so much that the author is usually left on his own. And in this case the author (me, that is) is not a native speaker. Which means there might be many more such calque translations from Polish and I might not be able to notice them on my own.
Anyway, I corrected the issues you mentioned above. I will also try to make the prose a little more concise, though I'm not sure if the effect would actually make anyone vote on this article. Being a professional journalist I'm quite good at this, but as I said, English is not my native language and apparently I'm not proficient enough to copyedit my own articles. //Halibutt 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please take it as a compliment that in my partial reading I did not actually realise that English wasn't your first language. Apart from the occasional non-idiomatic words and phrases, the quality of the writing looks pretty good. The article does, as I have said, need copyediting and trimming. I don't have much time at present, but should this review be archived without promotion, if you contact me I'll do my best to give the article a proper copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: thanks for the offer. I trimmed the article by over 3 kb recently, that is some 500 words of readable prose. I'm not sure what else could be trimmed/reworded/edited out. Pointing me in the general direction would be of much help. Anyway, seeing that there are no votes here, I might have to ask for your help pretty soon. :) //Halibutt 13:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

For certain terms like "Security Guard" and "National Guard" - which are presumably directly translations of original Polish terms but which seem a bit strained in English - could the Polish original name be provided in brackets? To my mind too, the images could do with being re-positioned to take aesthetics into account - but that's obviously just cosmetic... A thorough article anyway, and one I hope will encourage me to get the Belgian Revolution article of the same year in order!—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Not sure what's wrong with the National Guard as there is plenty of National Guards out there, but I took your advice anyway. The articles on those formations are on my to-do list, but so far only the Jewish City Guard has its' own article.
Problem with their names is that there are no established English proper names so we're left with direct translations. National Guard is pretty safe, as the Polish militia unit was modelled after the French National Guard (hence the name). However, the Security Guard might indeed be a tad more problematic. The Polish term is Straż Bezpieczeństwa. Polish: Straż means guard (as in border guard, advance guard, coastguard and so on) and Polish: Bezpieczeństwa means "of security". I chose to call it Security Guard but perhaps Guard of Security sounds better? I have no idea. We could go either way as I doubt the unit was ever mentioned in any English language publication.
As to pictures - is this what you meant? If not - could you please be bold and suggest something? //Halibutt 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Halibu. It's not a problem for the translation. In all sorts of revolutions of the period, you have terms like "Bourgeois guard" and "Civic guard" that don't work fantastically in translation. I think the original text makes it clear that this is just a translation of a foreign proper-noun. Viz the photos, I just meant that they could be better spaced through the article so that they do not squeeze the text like the two Sowiński pictures currently do. As I said, though, it's not a massive problem! All the best for the article's promotion, —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from John[edit]

I want to support this nomination, and I read the comments above about prose with interest. I even got some way into copy-editing it, but I am coming to realise that there is just too much detail. It is also slightly over-written, but it will still be too dense even after thorough copy-editing. I am not going to oppose either at this stage. There has to be a way to fix this beautiful article to meet FA criteria. Let me think about it. --John (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

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

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

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

Oppose There are some issues with the article's comprehensiveness that should be resolved. My major concern is the excessive dating, which contradicts the prose writing style. Here are other aberrations I noticed:

  • Why is Sky Jump with capital letters? Is it the company's name?
    Sky Jump is the model of the attraction.
  • The second sentence doesn't flow well. That might be because of the absence of linking words, or maybe because too many information is compressed into one sentence.
  • The delay was due to mechanical and technical issues. Technical is a broad term, it can mean anything from bureaucratic problems to controlling malfunction.
    That is as specific as it got in terms of what the park releases/said to media outlets.
  • These "interesting soil conditions" are something like unusual soil characteristics?
    I don't one knows. That's why I'm quoting the article (hence the quotations).
  • Another sentence that caught my eye was "with fifty winners from each contest among the first riders"? I guess "being elected" could fit in front of "among"?
  • The writing style seems odd at places. The description of Lance Hart could be separated with commas, not in brackets. Also, the use of hyphen seems strange at places (check the 'Records').
    Hard brackets are used when you are cutting a section of the quote out and "pasting" the 2 remaining parts together together.
  • Don't you think that Twitter posts would be better instead of Twitter tweets? After all, jargon shouldn't be featured in encyclopedia.
  • Usually we state the name of the news reporter without ".com"→Florida Trip Guides
  • Because of safety reasons, the Falcon's Fury was built at night. This is fine, but it is not necessarily connected with the building's reception. The 'History' section might be a better solution.
    I put that sentence there because of what follows after. Also, this is already mentioned in the history section.
  • I can not quite understand the last paragraph. There is a prediction that 2014 would have increased attendance by 3–8%. Then it says "as predicted in June 2014". Was the prediction for 2014 made in June 2014? Secondly, how the profit of other four amusement parks is related to this one?
    Fixed the prediction part. Regarding the four parks....the stats given in the news articles COMBINE all the parks together. Also, it shows that though BGT predicted 3 - 8 percent for its own park, attendance only increased by 0.3 percent for ALL parks combined (aka...Falcon's Fury didn't help at all).
  • There are number of words considered part of the everyday vocabulary and not directly related to the topic that are linked: square feet, amusement park, sweepstakes, Easter egg, etc.
    I'm leaving amusement park linked as that is linked in almost every GA and FA article related to amusement parks. And square feet is automatically linked as it is apart of the Convert template.
@Retrohead, NickGibson3900: Thank you both for you feedback. I will be replying to all your comments later today (I can already explain/fix all your's just going to take time to type it out!!!)--Dom497 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Retrohead: I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the quick response. Please have understanding for my concerns, as I'm novice in reviewing non-music articles. Another note I forgot to leave above was incorporating the statement from the box to the first paragraph in 'Ride experience'. I think it's nothing spectacular and does not need to be highlighted.--Retrohead (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Acacia pycnantha[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A few quibbles before I support.

  • at Hale Conservation Park—If it's notable enough for redlink, why not write a one para stub to turn it blue?
started now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC):* flowering—"flower" seems more natural
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • though did categorise a possible subspecies—"did" appears to be subjectless
subjected now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Birds greatly facilitate this and field experiments keeping birds away from flowers greatly
removed first adverb Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • though it is not clear that the parrots are feeding on them or some other factor is at play—I would have thought "whether" rather than "that"
aah yes. good catch. not sure hwat happened there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a host to rust fungus species in the genus—"It" is separated by at least two sentences from its presumed intended subject
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise, all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support from Peter Coxhead[edit]

I think the article is definitely close to FA status. A few rather random points:

  • The lead section is rather short. A bit more of a summary of the later sections of the article would be useful, e.g. expand a little on the native distribution and habitat, use as an ornamental plant, presence on stamps(?).
lead expanded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A larger/clearer image of the phyllodes would be useful.
I'll track one down --Melburnian (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the hoverfly picture with a new similarly themed picture, but also including clear phyllode details. The new image is File:Acacia pycnantha phyllodes and fly 9276.jpg.--Melburnian (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd expect the alt text to be completed in the images in an FA.
alt text added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There's nothing on the structure of individual flowers; the text goes straight from "Each inflorescence is made up of 50 to 100 tiny flowers" to "The later developing pods" – I would have expected at least something on the flowers themselves inbetween.
flower structure added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was surprised that nitrogen fixation wasn't at least mentioned as a factor in its ability to grow in poor soils and its tendency to spread. (Strangely it's not mentioned in the Acacia article either, although a search for "acacia nitrogen fixing fixation" throws up many good sources.)
that's a tricky one - as there is always the dilemma over how much and what to have in a genus (vs. species) article. Surprised it's not in genus article. Will take a look around and digest.....and see what I come up with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC) good stuff on N fixation found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would mention the season ("spring", "summer", etc.) as well as the months in appropriate places – these are helpful to readers in the "other" hemisphere.
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I'm very happy to support the article now; some interesting new information added! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

and thanks for the constructive suggestions - enjoyed finding out some cool stuff Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • What do you mean by "Habit" in the caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This --> Habit (biology) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

CommentSupport from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • In the description section, "phyllodes" links via a redirect to "petiole", and then the lead of that article defines petiole as "the stalk attaching the leaf blade to the stem". Later in the article there is some explanation of what happens in acacias, but all in all i found the situation a bit unsatisfactory. The article talks about phyllodes all the way through which, while technically correct, is a bit troublesome when the reader tries to remember that we are functionally talking about leaves. Can you at least add a phrase explaining what a phyllodes is, when it first occurs in the body text?
I was surprised phyllode was a redirect. Oh well, expanded a little and linked a bit differently now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "groups of 40 to 80 in axillary 2.5–9 cm (1–3 1⁄2 in)-long racemes". Can anything be done to create more of a picture for the reader here, since most will know the meaning of neither "axillary" nor "racemes".
this is hard - have removed some redundant text and expanded "axillary" - raceme is hard..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The later developing pods are flattish,..." Confusing - where's the text about the earlier developing pods?
whoops - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "They are released once the pods are fully ripe in December and January". I feel this would sound better if written as "They are released in December and January, when the pods are fully ripe"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The text about flowering is tricky. It starts in the second last sentence of the first para, then continues in the second para, so the para break seems wrongly placed. Then there's the rather confusing overlap of months, so it seems a bit as though the article is telling us two different versions of when flowering occurs. Is it all year round with a peak in July-August, or is it July to November?
whoops - split section in wrong place. tweaked now. the buds begin all year but most abort, except those initiated between November and May, which go on to mature between July and November. Would switching the order help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What on earth does "self-incompatible" mean?
That a plant can't fertilise itself - have linked and enlarged a little - do you think it's clear enough? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Something weird with the various "and"s here: "It hosts bacteria, known as rhizobia, that form root nodules and where they metabolise and make nitrogen available in organic form and thus help the plant grow in poor soils."
I have rejigged the sentence now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Honeybees, native bees, ants and flies also visit nectaries, but generally only one or a few and do not come into contact with the flowers during this activity". only one or a few what - bees and ants, or nectaries? This sentence isn't that great - the but...and construction seems a bit clumsy.
On reflection, I think the "generally only one or a few" is not really needed so I removed it. --Melburnian (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Those huge fractions in the imperial measurement conversions look really ugly, and I feel they impair readability - are there any other options?
at a previous FAC on Epacris impressa, fractions rather than decimal points were recommended for inches. I have removed the conversions where it gets down to mm. For some reason these larger-sized numerals are preferred than the more classical-looking ones. I am finding it difficult to please everybody with this.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a link or meaning for "naturalised"?
Aha, I found Naturalisation (biology)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. Maybe another day this week... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • "...and become problematic in bushland near Hobart...." Problematic? What does that mean? I note the paragraph never uses the word "weed". Is that what is essentially meant? Maybe that word should be used...
Aha...reading too many secondary sources...changed to 'weedy', which is what it means Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think i have anything else. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

hamiltonstone thanks for the input - sounds like you still feel a little underwhelmed by the prose, so if you see anything else let me know - I'll try and rustle up interest in another copyeditor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, just haven't had time to read something end to end. Happy to support. I do have a question: in the section on cultivation, the text says it is short-lived, but there's nothing in the description about its lifespan. Is there anything in the literature other than "short-lived"? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Annoyingly I couldn't find anything. Wattles are generally fast-growing and short-lived plants - suspect 15 years give or take 5 years but can't say this without a source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I found a source for 15 to 30 years add added it.--Melburnian (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN37 and 41 have very broad page ranges - possible to narrow?
page ranges refined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "http" is not the format - "html" would be, but it seems rather pointless to specify that at all given that it would be expected for web sources
removed unneeded parameters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when you include locations and accessdates
should be all consistent now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • FN46: volume, issue, pages?
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Your two Cited texts take different approaches to volume formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Note -- "Several species of honeyeater, including the white-naped, yellow-faced,[34] New Holland,[35] and occasionally white-plumed, crescent,[34] white-naped honeyeaters and Eastern spinebills have been observed foraging". Guys, you've twice mentioned white-naped honeyeaters in this sentence, so are they regular or occasional foragers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

oops, missed that - I rejigged some stuff there and left a bit. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Seinfeld Chronicles[edit]

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

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

  • Support as last time, on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – engaging and thorough. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: On the second and third paragraphs under the Reception section, the first mention of Ken Tucker is unlinked while the second one is linked while being described as The Philadelphia Inquirer critic. The first mention of Tucker should be linked with the description of Philadelphia Inquirer while the second mention should be unlinked without the description. Otherwise this article receives a Support from me.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed ;) and thanks for your support.--Music26/11 10:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK (2 points, FUR? Done)

  • File:Jason_Alexander_Crop.png - all 3 source/author/permission links appear to be dead.
  • File:Sein_ep101.jpg - could you elaborate on the "fair-use" rationale? Simply illustrating something usually isn't enough for "fair-use"; specifics and importance of the interior scene are never mentioned in the article. The scene also looks like a normal episode scene without any special or even iconic value (identification, critical commentary or iconic value would be among the most common of valid rationales).
  • Other images are OK (CC) with source and author info, and no signs of Flickr-washing. GermanJoe (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • At the currnt moment I am unable to adress these issues but I'll fix them over the weekend ;).--Music26/11 13:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy couple of days, I've removed both images. I wasn't able to find an image of the pilot that would qualify as fair-use. I coulnd't find an alternative source for the Jason Alexander pic either, so I replaced it with an image of Ricards.--Music26/11 15:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
        • No worries, thanks for addressing those questions. All images are OK now. (if a non-free image is no longer in use, you can tag it with template:di-orphaned fair use to request deletion - done already, just fyi). GermanJoe (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the info, I realised the image would be orphaned yet I thought the adding of such a template would be done by a bot.--Music26/11 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review:

  • Who is Dennis Bjorklund and why should his Seinfeld Secrets book be considered a reliable source? Looks self-published.
  • Same comment about his other book you cite. Praetorian doesn't look like any kind of serious publisher—who is this guy? Do you have any mainstream sources referring to him as an "insider" or "expert" as he claims?
  • The Brandon Gorrell book seems to be self-published. Why is it reliable?
  • Mixture of date formats used in References (see Retrieved dates on web site refs vs. other dates).

--Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Will deal with these comments this weekend, thanks for taking the time to review :).--Music26/11 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Master System[edit]

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

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

Comments by Tezero[edit]

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

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

Comments by Indrian[edit]

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

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits. It'll only make me cry.
    • I won't touch them; by far I don't claim to be the most skilled copyeditor on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand the intended humor here. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't set the pixel size of images without a good reason, as it overrides user settings.
    • Never been an issue brought to my attention before; may be because sometimes I still edit like it's 2008 (long story). I've removed them for the thumbnail images; I'd prefer to leave them for the inset table in the Technical specifications unless there's a way to make that work without making the images gigantic and completely screw up the whole thing. If there is, I'd be okay with making such a fix. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt text would be nice for images
  • The Master System (マスターシステム Masutā Shisutemu?): I don't think it's reasonable to assume that readers will know those funny characters are Japanese—I strongly recommend adding "|lead=yes" to the {{Nihongo}} template
  • 8-bit third-generation video game console this reads as if it were one link, when it's two. Could it be reworded to break up the links?
  • redesigned and retitled the Master System for release in 1986 in North America, 1987 in Europe and Japan, and 1989 in Brazil: a few issues here:
    • "redesigned and retitled the Master System" doesn't read well—at first blush, it reads as if it were "redisgned the Master System" and "retitled the Master System"
    • Was it limited to these markets? If yes, that should be stated; otherwise it comes off as cherrypicking random markets (Brazil? Huh?)
      • I'll note my reworking of this sentence below, but the rest of the article notes a bit why Brazil is slightly more noteworthy than some other markets; Master System has enjoyed a very unique success in Brazil where it's still being supported, though through different hardware now, by Sega distributor Tectoy. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • So it the rebranded/redesigned versino was released in Japan in 1987; the wording makes it almost seem like it was released there in 1987 for the first time
      • I've finished reworking this sentence into a couple of different ones to rectify these issues. I'd really like to keep Brazil on the basis of its notability in the article; while Japan, North America, and Europe are the "usual three regions", Brazil is a little special in this particular instance because of its history in the region, and details about its unique history are in the body of the article and sourced. If you disagree, however, I will remove it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • also served as the base structure: what does "base structure" mean here?
  • Retrospective reception: ?? Is there such a thing?
    • I don't think it's such a confusing term, but I'll reword it. "Reception to the system given in retrospect" work well enough here? Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982: this was gaming in genereal, and not just arcades, wasn't it?
    • Just a point of history here. In that time period, the arcade and consumer businesses were very different markets with only a small amount of overlap in terms of involved companies (Atari being the most prominent one). They were also on different business cycles. Without going into too much detail, the arcade industry began to collapse in mid-1982 due to over saturation of the market (too many arcades and street locations) and bottomed out in 1984. The home market crashed in 1983 due to oversaturation (too many publishers stuffing retail channels with too much product) and bottomed out in 1985. These were two separate events that overlapped for a time. Sega was barely in the home market, only establishing a consumer division right before the market crash, so it was hurt far more seriously by the collapse of the arcade market. Therefore, the article is accurate on this point. Indrian (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It's probably a good idea to throw in a footnote on this, then, as I image I'm not the only one who would assume they were the same downturn. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Designed by Sega's "Away Team" internal division: what do the quotes signify?
  • redesigned new iteration: is there a difference between "redesigned new iteration" and "redesigned iteration"?
  • SC-3000—a computerized version of the SG-1000: meaning?
    • Linked home computer here and changed "computerized" to "computer". Essentially the meaning is a version that was turned into a computer. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • According to Edge, lessons from the SG-1000's lack of commercial success were used in the hardware redesign of the Mark III.: what kinds of lessons, and how were they used?
  • against a white marker board: is this supposed to be a "whiteboard"?
  • although plans to release a cheaper "Base System" also influenced the decision: what is this, and how did it influence the naming decision?
    • Rephrased to note the Base System as a console concept, and noted similarity of the names as an influence. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • whereby Nintendo required that titles for the Famicom not be published on other consoles.: is there something good to link to here? I'd've thought there'd be an article on this.
    • Strangely there doesn't seem to be one, which has me a little surprised myself (not even Nintendo marketing seems to be useful, although that would likely be the logical place to put it). It has been my experience that video game law is a little soft on Wikipedia; I did the FA on Sega v. Accolade and at that time in 2013, there still wasn't an article on Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, which was one of the most important video game law cases in the same vein as Sega v. Accolade. It has an article now, fortunately. I've discussed with a few other users the missing gap as well about 1993 hearings on video game violence that led to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board; I'm sure a few new articles will have to come out of this at some point. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • to port games from other developers, albeit with little success.: the games, the attempts, or the ports were unsuccessful?
  • NEC later used the same strategy on some of Sega's titles when developing games for the PC Engine: why not say "TurboGrafx-16" instead of PC Engine?
  • with a typical project being allotted only three months of development time: what's a "typical project"? The SMS?
  • blocking localization of several popular video game titles: what does this mean?
  • It was distributed by Mastertronic in the United Kingdom, Master Games in France, and Bertelsmann in Germany.: was it limited to these three markets?
    • That's how it appears from the source. This would also make sense: we know from the source that Sega provided limited inventory for the launch, so if they only had a small number of consoles, it would make sense to focus on the three largest markets in Europe. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • deliver inventory until Boxing Day,: should probably explain Boxing Day
  • Nintendo's less effective approaches in Europe: any details on Nintendo's approaches?
    • David Sheff's book Game Over would be the go to source for this. Basically, Sega ended up backing Mastertronic as a single Euope-wide distributor that enjoyed strong support from Sega and could coordinate strategies across European markets, while Nintendo relied on a patchwork of distributors of varying effectiveness and did not pay much attention to the region on a corporate level until about 1992. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd briefly describe it, then, if you've got the sources for it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Master System held a significant part of the video game console market in Europe through the release of Sega's succeeding console, the Sega Genesis (known as Mega Drive in territories outside of North America).: since this is in a European context, shouldn't it be referred to as the Mega Drive? Also, was it called the Mega Drive in Britain?
    • This one was me being overly cautious; I worked on Sega Genesis and was in the firestorm around that naming debate that's gone on for literally over ten years. I feel a tad uncomfortable with linking it as it is only on grounds of consistency across the encyclopedia, being it's the first use in the body of either Mega Drive or Sega Genesis and I removed the explanation as being redundant and linked Mega Drive directly, but I'm good with it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna stop here. I didn't actually intend to do a full review of the article—I only stopped by to mention the bit about the Japanese text, and then just continued. I may or may not return to finish the review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll have a look through in the next few days; should be a breeze to address. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @Curly Turkey: I've addressed most of your concerns and responded to the rest. I would very much encourage you to give it a full review given how far you've gone already; I would really be looking forward to your support after all concerns have been addressed. Red Phoenix let's talk... 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Image review

Status: Passed

  • Almost a pass- Logo1 needs to be the actual logo, not a slightly off version for no good reason; logo2 needs to get marked as ineligible for copyright and moved to commons. The only actually non-free image is the game screenshot, and it is fine. --PresN 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Now passed; see if you can move the Mark III logo to commons sometime. --PresN 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Source review

Status: Passed

  • Just taking these in order through the refs, including both style and substance concerns.
  • Ref 1 has not publisher for the book
  • Ref 4- "1st ed. ed."
  • Ref 7 has no publisher for the magazine, which you did do in ref 3
  • Ref 8- New York Times is not linked, and it's "The" NYT- as you did correctly in ref 34
  • Ref 9- "The" Miami Herald, and link it
  • Ref 11- no publisher given, even though you did in ref 10. Also, link Wired.
  • Ref 13- "The", and link
  • Ref 15- do you have a month/year for this issue? (optional)
  • Ref 22/23- link Sega of Japan, like you did in the last 3 refs
  • Ref 24- publisher for Game Informer
  • Ref 27- it's "AllGame", not "Allgame"
  • Ref 28- uh, full name for NYT, please
  • Ref 29- link Sega
  • Ref 30/32- link Retro Gamer
  • Ref 33- link Minneapolis Star Tribune, change HITS to Hits as per WP:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 34- ALLCAPS
  • Ref 36- link Retro Gamer, add publisher
  • Ref 39- AllGame
  • Ref 40- second author's name is backwards. You can use last1, first1, last2, first2 parameters for multiple authors
  • Ref 41,42- link Sega
  • Ref 43- link Joystiq
  • Ref 46- author3 is backwards, link magazine, add publisher
  • Ref 49- link IGN
  • Ref 50- link book
  • Ref 51- link magazine, add publisher
  • Ref 53/56- add publisher for Playthings
  • Ref 57- link IGN
  • Ref 58- publisher for Screen Digest
  • Ref 59- link Nintendo
  • No concerns on sources used- all RSs/used in recent prior FAs
  • Spotchecks: checked 5 or so references, came back clean.
  • Consider archiving all your online references, so that future website changes/closures don't affect the article. Additionally, since it's been unstable, consider double-archiving that webarchive backup at, so that robots.txt changes won't touch it. --PresN 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and given it a cleanup - If you don't mind, I do prefer the "link it only once" mindset, so not everything is to your words, but hopefully it should all be cleaned up. I'll look at archiving as soon as I can. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You missed some minor bits, but I fixed them. Wasn't sure which way you were going on linking, but guessed (wrongly) as you had linked Sega of Japan several times. Now passed. --PresN 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by GamerPro64[edit]

Marking my claim to review this article. Will get started by tomorrow. GamerPro64 20:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerPro64, are you still planning to review? Tezero (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do, Tezero. I have been unable to read the article due to IRL work. I'll get around to it this weekend. GamerPro64 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So after reading through the entire article, I'm confident in giving Support to it becoming a Featured Article. GamerPro64 01:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 403[edit]

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

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

  • Support. When I reviewed the article at ACR, I was really impressed by the history section. Hopefully others feel the same way. –Fredddie 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Based on my review at ACR, I feel that this article meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I suppose a bit pointless since independent review is what is still needed, but for avoidance of doubt. BTW, the ACR is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 403. --Rschen7754 08:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Source review—I did not review this at ACR, but I see that this article could use a source review, so here it is. Several of the comments below are more suggestions to consider than actual issues. (Note: a spotcheck was done at ACR as is required of newer promotions there.)
    • FN1: this is listed in full below the footnotes. Should this footnote be shortened? Also, I wouldn't capitalize "and" in the title; that's one of those words that is normally in lowercase in title case unless it is the first word.
      • I just shortened this one, linking it to the full citation below, which I tweaked for formatting. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN5: I'd swap the hyphen in the Google Maps title to a colon to match the usual convention on titles and subtitles. This suggestion would also apply to other examples where a title and subtitle are separated by a hyphen or dash instead of a colon.
      • I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN6, etc: I'd drop the volume and issue number. Those are normally not necessary to locate a newspaper since the date there is the important part. Also, the {{cite news}} template doesn't put the volume and issue number with the page number, unlike {{cite journal}}, so that information is oddly separated.
      • I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN7: the |section=News isn't needed with a full page number, and it appears the template is treating that as a section of an article, not the section of the newspaper. (For regular sections of a paper, there is |department= instead.) This would also apply to FN17 and others.
      • I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN10: [21] is a dead link. Fortunately, it's in the Wayback Machine at [22]. Additionally, I would make sure to add that it was printed on pages 26 and 31, which are the page numbers printed on the pages where it appears. (Page numbers from the PDF file's pagination don't help readers looking for an offline copy.)
      • I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN12: it would help if this were wikilinked to the location of the full citation. I've found {{harvnb}} and |ref=harv to be very useful in that regard. (I don't use {{sfn}} because that omits the reference tags. havnb gets placed within the tags, and then it will appear along with the other references when I use either of the scripts that segregates an article's references in the edit window.)
      • I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN13: in {{cite journal}}, I think you should use |journal= Proceedings of the... Convention and |title=Ontario, and maybe you should spell out the full title of Proceedings of the <what?> Convention.
    • FN16: full citation please?
      • My guess is that it is [23] --Rschen7754 05:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • FN 27 is also similarly shortened without a fully expanded citation. Unfortunately, that one is even more vague than FN 16, I've left both of these for now. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • FN62: I wouldn't use {{cite journal}} for this one. Instead, I'd use {{cite book}}, and then |volume=vol. 1. When additional text like that is passed in to the |volume= parameter, it drops the boldface and just makes it clear that it is a volume number being referenced. For whatever reason, in this case, {{cite journal}} is separating the volume and page number, so the clue that the bolded number next to another one is absent.
  • The good news is that all of the sources used pass the sniff test for reliability (official government documents, articles from reputable newspapers, maps from recognizable cartographers), so in my opinion, it's just a matter of a little polish on formatting to make this good article better. Imzadi 1979  21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as everything seems mostly in order, with acknowledgement of the issues Imzadi noted above. It seems that the nominator has taken off for several weeks, so I'm not sure what that means for this nomination. Maybe someone else from the road project can make the adjustments? The only thing that struck me as odd in the writing, and maybe this is normal for road articles, is the free use of "freeway" as a synonym for "highway". It first made me retrace my steps to see if some other road had been mentioned that was being referred to as "the freeway" while Highway 403 was being called "the highway". Failing that, I went off on an expedition to discover that the terms are interchangeable, which I never knew. I always thought of them as regional variances of the same concept, not necessarily words that you switch around to refer to the same thing. I'm not really asking for it to be changed, but maybe someone can explain the editorial rationale. --Laser brain (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I am willing to step in if needed for some of the minor issues (please drop me a note if I forget). --Rschen7754 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • In regards to your question, "freeway" and "highway" are not necessarily interchangeable, but in this case both are applicable, as Ontario Highway 403 is a freeway, and a (provincial) highway. --Rschen7754 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Since Floydian is temporarily unavailable, I've also done the remaining minor formatting fixes above. Pretty much, all that's left is the full citations for footnotes 16 and 27.

        That leaves a question I have about the shortened footnotes in general. FN 25 is the only footnote to that citation. The same goes for FN 26. If this were my article, I'd expand those two footnotes to be the full citation because they are not repeated. Assuming we also found the full citations for FN 16 and 27, that means only one source is left shortened, for FN 1 and 14. I don't think it would be bad to repeat that citation only twice in the footnotes, so if this were my article I were working on, I'd just do away with shortening any footnotes. Imzadi 1979  15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Barn owl[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

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

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

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

Here are some more comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This book splits the subspecies:

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

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

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

Support Thank you for addressing my queries so efficiently. "extra pernickety"? Aa77zz (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your help and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (1 request Done)

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

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

  • It is also referred to as the common barn owl, to distinguish it from other species in the barn owl family Tytonidae which—You could avoid a repetition by something like "in its family Tytonidae"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • and by some authors its Lesser Antilles populations insularis and nigrescens still are.—clunky structure
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • a varying amount of tiny blackish-brown speckles—"speckle" is a countable noun, "number", not "amount"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • usually at altitudes below 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) ASL—the acronym and link seem unnecessarily complicated, either write out "sea level" or just leave it out as assumed
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • on a rocky island off the coast of California—named?
I don't know. The incident is mentioned at greater length in Taylor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the cited article the incident took place on Castle Rock, off Crescent City, California. The short paragraph published in the Condor is available online here. I checked the reference as only one page was specified - which turned out to be correct - but the author's name was misspelled and the year was wrong. The author "disposed of the owlets" - which isn't quite "was successfully reared" as stated in the wiki article. Aa77zz (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is also available from JSTOR. Taylor provides an incorrect reference which has been copied into the article without checking. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The article and reference have been changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pound for pound, barn owls consume more rodents—I don't like the US version, "weight for weight" or "kilo for kilo" would be better
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • the nests of other birds such as the hamerkop—add "large" before "nest"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While the barn owl is a prolific breeder and able to recover from short-term population decreases, they are
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing about parasites, there is plenty out there, eg this
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [23][24][7]—This is not in numerical order (I didn't check whether there were others
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bruce, M. D. (1999) has the page numbers in the bibliography, the other books have them in the short form, looks inconsistent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 30 has an incorrectly formatted link which appears to be dead anyway
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I may be away for a couple of days, so no rush to respond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will give this a more thorough look later, but for now, would it be possible to source the range info under subspecies? FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It basically all comes from Handbook of Birds of the World which I have sourced at the beginning. I am just about to go away for the weekend. I will deal with your comments on my return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Could the info be cited to that source, just to be safe? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It always irks me a bit when images interfere with headings, could the one under description and the one under breeding be moved to the right?
  • On second thoughts, maybe the Audubon image is a bit inappropriate under description?. He was notorious for posing his birds in quite unlikely postures, for compositorial effect (see for example[24]), as also seems to be the case in that image. It is a nice image, but maybe of more cultural than anatomical value. At least a more representative image could come first under description. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Could be nice with a photo of the eggs, perhaps this one?[25] FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we have quite a few more interesting "in flight" images than the one used.[26] In general, I think we have nice unused images on Commons that could make the article more visually interesting.
I have taken up most of these suggestions and made some changes to the images. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice, I'll add further comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "seem to be worthy of recognition as long as the species is not split up." What is meant by this? They are only worthy of recognition if the species is not split up? How?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have checked the licenses and sources of the newly added images, they are fine, so further image review is not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "a time when she flies little and the male feeds her so she does not need to fly." Isn't one of these redundant?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " an angry barn owl lowers its head and sways it from side to side, or the head may be lowered and stretched forward and the wings drooped while the bird emits hisses and makes snapping noises with its bill." Both adults and chicks? I've only seen videos of chicks doing this... FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently adults do it as well according to Witherby. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the see also The Owl Box is redundant, as it is already mentioned but not linked under the status section. Once a link is added there, the see also section could be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The intro uses "typical owls" and the article uses "true owls" for the same clade, should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "which forms one of the two main lineages of living owls, the other being the typical owls (Strigidae)" This info is only in the lead, but should be in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "except polar and desert regions, Asia north of the Himalayas, most of Indonesia and some Pacific islands." Likewise, there should be no info in the intro that is not found in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The information is the same but expressed in a different way but I have rephrased the info in the Distribution section slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - All issues fixed nicely, that's it for me! FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Need to say it is either a species or species complex/superspecies in lead and in article, if it can be sourced - reflecting the split in current taxonomy.
I haven't found mention of it as a species complex. The word "species" is in the lead and I have added it to the beginning of the Taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The IOC currently lists it as two species, with a question mark over whether furcata should be split (and delicatula recombined). I don't think we can just ignore this in the lead - there should be a sentence along the lines that it is one, two or possibly three species - this is generally called a superspecies or species complex and I would be surprised if this can't be found in a source somewhere. I am travelling for another day or so and will have a look when I get a chance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added some more information on the results of a phylogenetic study. A search in Google Scholar for "Tyto alba" + "species complex" brought up nothing, but "Tyto alba" + "superspecies" brought up this. I can't access more than the abstract but it includes the sentence "Previous studies of the eastern Barn Owl's diet in Australia, and of the wider Barn Owl complex (formerly Tyto alba) internationally, have found that this superspecies ...". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Konig and Weick recognise three main species plus split off some others. Given this book is pretty definitive and quoted elsewhere this should be added I think. There is some material on page 47 and 48 worth adding (I can see it in Oz, not sure if you can in UK?). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Need to add that the Iranian paper didn't test delicatula and doesn't seem to comment on placement of it - the fact that they just report its previous placement the end seems to indicate that they accept that it is more divergent (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think that the Iranian paper accepts that the delicatula lineage is divergent, hence the line Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are two distinct groupings of barn owl, one in the Old World and one in the New, but further research needs to be done to clarify whether these should be regarded as separate species - should read "Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are at least three major lineages of barn owl, one in the Eurasia and Africa, one in Australasia and one in the New World, with possibly some highly divergent taxa on islands, but further research needs to be done to clarify whether these should be regarded as separate species" or something similar, and noting that some authorities recognise up to five species possibly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have dealt with these points as best I can. I have added to the lead and rearranged the taxonomy section a bit and am more satisfied with it. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Need to add rationale of those publishing the split as to why they think the split should happen.
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see it - where? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
In the second half of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy and etymology". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC) (Now moved to the second paragraph) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Across its vast range, the barn owl has formed many subspecies, - "formed"....sounds weird in transitive here...another verb?
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The barn owl is considered to be the most widespread landbird species in the world, occurring in every continent except Antarctica.' - is it or isn't it? why have "considered" at all?
I prefer to use the word "considered" as you can't be sure, nobody having counted these or other birds on a world-wide basis or established their precise ranges. On further thoughts, it is stated in the source so I might as well say it too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally a medium-sized owl, there is considerable size variation across the subspecies. - change of subject here. I'd split these two clauses and align elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a hefty first clause with four double-barrelled adjectives in it! I think I'd take "pale-coloured" out of it and move down to the text on coloration. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Before starting to lay eggs,.. --> "Before laying eggs,..." will suffice
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Some species have Latin names listed while others don't....should make them all or none I think.
I think they all have scientific names now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on - my free time is really patchy. Will give this another read-through soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxford College of Emory University[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
      • Not quite done yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
        • What about now? I've removed periods from the alt texts and the intramural football team. --haha169 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Oxfordcollegelogo.svg: FUR could be more expansive - in particular the "n.a." [parameters should be filled in, they are at least partially applicable
    • Done
  • File:Oxford_city_plan_(1837).jpg: archival images are often not published near the time of their creation - when/where was this first published?
    • Done I don't feel like this was ever published, except for being viewable at the Emory University archives, so I switched the template to PD-old, based on the death of the author plus 100 years. Is this acceptable?
      • Almost: life+100 would be correct, but the tag you've used is life+70. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, whoops, thanks for catching that oversight. I've fixed it. -- (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Apologies, forgot to log in on a public computer. --haha169 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:IsaacSHopkins.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, without which we cannot conclude that the author died over 70 years ago
    • Done I don't know, so I just removed the image
  • File:Yun_Chi-ho's_1910's.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Done

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox (for example, the motto) do not appear to be sourced anywhere
    • Done. I also added sources for the enrollment figures and Dean Stephen Bowen. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Emory College continued to struggle with financial hardships after the war" - source?
  • Source for Lamar as alumnus?
  • Both FN51 and FN60 do not link anywhere
  • Dead external links
    • I don't understand how to fix this one. All of the dead links have working archive URLs... --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you're right - I thought a couple had been missed but I was mistaken. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For page numbers, single pages should use "p." only, multiple pages use "pp."
    • Done. I didn't know that. Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Still a few here that are the wrong way round, please double-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Think I've got them all now. --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Most web citations include accessdates, but not FN19 - why?
  • Some of your web sources (ex. FNs 39 and 40) are missing publishers
    • Done--haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Emory Magazine or The Emory Magazine? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Without the "the". Oops. --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Emory is usually wikilinked in citations, but sometimes isn't - either all, none, or first time only, up to you but be consistent
  • FN45: the link mentions Sodexo, but they don't appear to be the publisher
  • FN58: Emory Edge appears to be a publication title and so should be italicized
  • Compare formatting of FNs 64 and 65 (the latter is correct)
  • FN66 and 67: suggest either using full "U.S. House of Representatives" or switching to Congress - help us non-Americans out ;-)
  • FN70 through 72 suddenly change date formatting - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure, must have something to do with older versions of the article. I've fixed it. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
With the exception of the archived urls showing up in the checklinks tools, everything should be fixed. Thank you again for your very thorough review; I appreciate it! --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Weak oppose Oppose, on prose grounds. Some specific points from the first couple of sections are below, and then a couple of items from later in the article to indicate that the problems are throughout. There is a lot of good material here but it needs a pass through from a good writer who is unfamiliar with the material and hence will spot places where the writing is disconnected or out of chronological order.

  • "In 1833 the Georgia Methodist Conference first considered establishing a church-sponsored manual labor school": I'm not sure what "first" means here. Was this the first time they considered establishing a church-sponsored manual labour school? Or the first time they considered establishing a school at all?
  • "The Conference then granted Ignatius Alphonso Few a charter to establish a college": I don't think "then" means anything here; I'd cut it.
  • "The new school, Emory College, was first established on tract of land": you don't need "new" and "first"; I'd cut "first".
  • "This site was chosen because of its relative distance from the city": cut "relative".
  • "Because the college and town were planned together, many of the town's residents were affiliated to the college. Consequently, the two entities shared a common purpose." I don't understand what "affiliated" means here -- do you mean that most of the town's residents were connected to the college in some way, usually by employment? If so, the second sentence isn't really clear either; what does it mean to say that the town shared the same purpose? I imagine the intended meaning is something like "the town was run in a way that was supportive of the college's goals", but it's not clear.
  • I think the second half of this paragraph needs some resequencing -- a more chronological sequence would make it easier on the reader. You say the college was established on a tract of land, but in fact both the college and town were established there, and saying that at that point would be helpful.
  • As far as I can tell the Georgia Conference Manual Labor School was in Covington, but the articles doesn't actually say that.
  • You don't give the date of establishment of Emory College; the town's date of incorporation is given later, but not the college. Are they the same? It doesn't seem so, because "two years after the chartering" is in 1838, but the town isn't incorporated till 1839.
  • How can the first act of the new student body by in 1837, when the first class wasn't welcomed till 1838?
  • "remains the oldest structure still remaining": rephrase to avoid two "remain"s.
  • "Both Phi Gamma and Few Halls were used as infirmaries for wounded soldiers from 1843 to 1864" implies that it was used for that purpose well before the Civil War; can we be more specific? The only context the article gives is the Civil War.

This is where I stopped reading in detail. A couple more points chosen at random from later in the article (this is not a complete list of problems):

  • "Prior to the outbreak of war, financial tension had reduced the college's income and student body, and the school briefly closed in the summer of 1861 in anticipation of the American Civil War": redundant mention of the war.
  • "By the turn of the 20th century, Emory College still remained rooted in Oxford. Nonetheless, Emory College produced several notable graduates during this era." Why "nonetheless"? And what does "rooted" mean here; just "located"?
  • "The campus and the city of Oxford was planned and built in 1837 by Edward Lloyd Thomas ..." We already know the date from the earlier section; it's not unreasonable to separate the campus section in the way you've done here but I don't think this works. At a minimum, avoid duplicating material between the two sections unless it's necessary for flow; and keep the Campus section to current status, with the history in the historical section.
  • "was established as Emory University's unofficial mascot and originated in Oxford in 1901": unless you mean "was originated", which would be less than ideal phrasing, this needs to be reworded.
  • "As of 2012 there were over 50 registered student organizations which cover a variety of interests": tense mismatch between "were" and "cover".

I'm sure you can fix the points I've raised above, but I think the whole article needs to be copyedited. It's not in terrible shape, but the prose is not yet at FA level, I'm afraid. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Mike! I will get to work on them soon, as well as do a full copyedit of my own. Done --haha169 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Haha169 asked me to take another look at the article after the recent copyedit. It's definitely improved, but reading through I still see places where the prose is less than optimal. I've changed to "weak oppose" because the problems now look to me to be more marginal. I would still recommend a third party copyedit. I see no problems with content or comprehensiveness but haven't done a thorough review with those criteria in mind; I was paying attention mostly to the prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

American paddlefish[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Paddlefish_distribution.png: where did the data for this map come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The data comes from government sources, including the US Geological Survey, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and numerous other government sources. Example can be seen here [27] AtsmeConsult 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by Tezero[edit]

I haven't done a biology article in a while; this might be interesting. Some initial comments:

  • The intro's on the long side for an article of this prose size. I think it could be pared to two-thirds its current size with little negative consequence.
  • I see some misuse of commas, e.g. "Violations can result in substantial monetary fines, and imprisonment.", "in China where there", "to their decline, and will", "otherwise be exposed to air, or covered", "earliest ancestors whose fossil record".
  • "in the Great Lakes and Canada, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania" - why are the Great Lakes and Canada grouped as one unit instead of separate entries in the list?
  • "regulations were enacted" - should be "have been enacted"
  • "commonly called "paddlefish", but are also referred to as "Mississippi paddlefish", "spoon-billed cats", or "spoonbill"" - pick either italics or quotes; using both is for situations like quoting text in a foreign language
  • "It is endemic to the Yangtze River Basin in China, and unlike the planktivorous American paddlefish, they are strong swimmers" - why do you switch from "it" to "they"? Pick one pronoun and stick to it.
  • Similarly: "The critically endangered, possibly extinct Chinese paddlefish, Psephurus gladius, is the closest extant relative of American paddlefish" - That's THE American paddlefish to you! I wouldn't recommend omitting the "the", but if you're going to, do so throughout the page.
  • "They commonly inhabited large, free-flowing rivers, braided channels, backwaters, and oxbow lakes throughout the Mississippi River drainage basin, adjacent Gulf drainages, the Great Lakes and rivers in Ontario, Canada." - This is quite a run-on; please fix.

Tezero (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. In transit now, but as soon as I arrive at destination, will begin the clean-up. I tend to put a checkmark beside each suggestion when I've completed the task. If you have any objections to that process, please advise. Thank you for contributing your time. AtsmeConsult 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine; just make sure it's easy to see (bold it, maybe?). Unlike an increasing number of reviewers, I don't care about my comments being split up; actually, I prefer it that way rather than responding to everything at the end. Tezero (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrections have been made in accordance with the initial review. Next? AtsmeConsult 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, are you still reviewing this article? Just wondered because it is in currently in Prep 5 about to be moved into the que for DYK. AtsmeConsult 16:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely forgot. Ping me again in a day or so if I haven't followed up; I'm on bus station Wi-Fi on my iPod and as such can't really review now. How do you DYK an FAC that's been open for this long, though - or is it that it had just passed GAN and DYK is being sluggish? Tezero (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeppers to "just" passed GAN and DYK is being slllluuugish. Aren't bus stations fun? Safe travels! AtsmeConsult 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lacepéde, 1797, " - should either be parenthesis or "In 1797, ..."
  • "Polyodon which" - comma
  • "A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago" - This sentence has no verb.
  • "When establishing the genus, Lacepéde dismissed speculation by some contemporary taxonomists who suggested paddlefish may be a unique genus of sharks because of some morphological similarities such as a heterocercal tail, and cartilaginous skeleton." - also a bit long, try introducing that this speculation existed first. Also, why did Lacepede dismiss this?
  • "However, they are critically endangered, and now believed to be extinct." - remove the second comma. Also, why are they "believed" to be extinct? When was the last one seen? Are there efforts to find more?
  • " sword-like rostrum" - link this in the first instance. I don't know what it is.
  • "Adult American paddlefish are toothless " - comma afterwards
  • "; spathula references the elongated, paddle shaped snout or rostrum" - Why is this semicoloned clause connected to this sentence? I don't see the connection.
  • " morphological characters" - shouldn't it be "characteristics"? Also, link this earlier; I was able to tell by context what it meant but some readers might not.
  • " dates from the" - nonstandard phrasing; how about "dates back to the"?
  • "are highly derived" - ???

Tezero (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tezero - Got 'er done. Hope the changes meet with your approval. As a sidebar note - morphological characters is correct, but I went ahead and changed it since it created a trip hazard. AtsmeConsult 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tezero ping, ping - the article is 1st in the DYK feature today.  :-) AtsmeConsult 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Tezero Hope you haven't forgotten me. Just wanted you to know we got a respectable 7,749 hits during the DYK. Also had some vandalism on the day it was featured, but the vandal police caught them in time. AtsmeConsult 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Here's more:

  • "ranging from bluish-gray to black dorsally grading to white ventrally" - confusing; try to reword.
  • "deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin" - I... don't know what any of this means.
  • "embryo to fry" - can you link "fry" and maybe "embryo"?
  • "However, laboratory experiments in 1993 that utilized advanced technology in the field of electron microscopy have established conclusively that the rostrum of American paddlefish is covered with tens of thousands of sensory receptors, morphologically similar to the ampullae of Lorenzini of sharks and rays, and that they are indeed passive ampullary-type electroreceptors used by American paddlefish to detect plankton." - Huge, huge, run-on.
  • "a navigational aid to mediate obstacle avoidance" - First of all, what else would navigational aids do? Second, if you're going to keep the second clause, change "mediate" to something else, as it implies that too much obstacle avoidance is a bad thing.
  • "Such feeding behavior is considered ram suspension-feeding." - That doesn't say much. What's ram suspension-feeding?

Tezero (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You asked, First of all, what else would navigational aids do? - biological GPS ascertaining position and direction.
  • You asked, What's ram suspension-feeding? - You must have missed the two sentences that describe it. Starts off with "When a swarm of zooplankton is detected, the paddlefish will swim forward....". There's also a video captioned "Paddlefish ram suspension-feeding zooplankton in aquarium".
  • I know, but I find it hard to believe that "ram suspension-feeding" is a conjugatable verb phrase. Actually, by looking at the video caption I thought "ram" was the verb and "suspension-feeding" was an adjective modifying "zooplankton". Tezero (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tezero I ran with your subliminal suggestion to create a general morphology diagram. Hope you like it. AtsmeConsult 18:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "Ova staging" - what is this? If it is simply the activity of cutting the fish open and whatnot, rephrase the sentence to something like "A process involving making a small incision and ... is known as 'ova staging'."
  • "They are currently proposed for listing as VU 3de throughout their range as the result of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assessment that suggests "an overall population size reduction of at least 30% may occur within the next 10 years or three generations due to actual or potential levels of exploitation and the effects of introduced taxa, pollutants, competitors or parasites."" - quite a run-on; please split somehow or paraphrase the quote.
  • "Federal and state resource agencies utilize artificial propagation techniques to mitigate areas where self-sustaining populations no longer exist" - what do you mean "mitigate"? Protect the individuals still alive? Try to get them to reproduce? Protect the areas themselves with no regards to the fish? Please explain in-text.
  • "and was oriented primarily on the maintenance of the sport fishery" - ???. Reword, please.

The prose is, I think, probably comprehensible enough aside from the complaints I've articulated so far. I can't speak to the sources - I haven't looked hard at them and I'm not well-versed in the sourcing standards for biology articles - but they look alright, too, as does the comprehensivess. Nice work, overall. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tezero Ok - I executed the repairs per your request. Considering the scrutiny this article has been under with both the GA and DYK reviews, not to mention drive-by collaborators, I was hoping your work would have been a little easier. You caught things none of the other editors caught, and made the article that much better. Good job. AtsmeConsult 22:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I think I can support now. Regarding the combing, that's just how it goes. Featured articles have higher standards than good articles: for example, the prose has to be more fluent, the sources must all be formatted correctly and consistently, and the standards for reliable sources are noticeably higher. Tezero (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, please forgive my inexperience, but is there anything else I'm supposed to do, or is the ball in court from here? AtsmeConsult 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

FACs need at least three supports to pass, along with an image review and a source review, and they can't have any oppose votes that are deemed to be legitimate. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything you can do but wait and ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. It's not a perfect process, admittedly... Tezero (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I usually make an appearance at FAC to nitpick prose and copywriting issues, but this article is well-written. I had a couple of issues with commas and unit conversions that I changed myself. I only have 2 comments, which don't affect my support, but I think could improve the article. First, in the Taxonomy section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is "Lacepéde established Polyodon for paddlefish because he believed Bonnaterre's account in 1788 was wrong to suggest paddlefish were a unique genus of sharks before knowing their country of origin and habits.[5]". Who is Bonnaterre, and what was his account in 1788? There is no other mention of this. The second issue is more of a curiosity about the evolutionary history of the species; if the Chinese paddlefish is the closest extant relative of the American paddlefish, and the only other fossils mentioned in the article appear to have been found in Montana, is there suspicion that different species appeared globally at different times? China is a long way from the Mississippi River watershed. Neil916 (Talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: Neil916, thank you for your support, and for the comma and conversion corrections. I've struggled somewhat with the comma issue because U.S. standards differ somewhat from accepted standards in the U.K. and Canada. Conversions are another trip hazard for me, but I have no excuse for not getting them right. Haste is the culprit. I should have been paying closer attention. With regards to your additional two comments, I was happy to make the improvements. AtsmeConsult 12:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

  • The lead section is meant to be a summary of the body of the text, easy to comprehend for someone too busy or lazy to read the rest of the article. Your lead is deficient in some respects. It deals in detail with some topics while completely omitting others. There is little about the fish's description or ecology and much about its common names, distribution and Chinese counterpart.
  • The lead uses complex terms such as "basal chondrostean ray-finned fish", "rostrum" and "peripheral range" which could do with some explanation even where they are linked.
  • There is some overlinking in the body of the article with duplicate wikilinks.
  • The "Tableau_encyclopédique_et_méthodique" should not include the "_"s.
  • I am far from competent myself in formatting references but I can see there are some inconsistencies in the citations. At least one has a date in a different format. Multiple authors are treated differently in different places. #7, Encyclopedia of Life has a stray "<". Some citations have years, others months and years. The capitalisation of the title varies etc.
  • I'll look at the article in further detail later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Cwmhiraeth. I fixed the stray "<", and wanted to let you know I use Provelt to add references. For sources that include citing instructions, I follow their suggestion as applicable to Provelt. I will go through and get the dates consistent, but some references provide only the year, not the month and day. Also, some of the sources provide first/last names, while others included last names only. In instances where there are more than one of the same last name for different authors, I tried to include first names when provided. The variety of sources from web urls to journals to books make it difficult to maintain true consistency. I will do what I can to meet your expectations. AtsmeConsult 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
My advice would be to use just the year and omit the month and day. You can probably fill out the author names with a bit of detective work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The accessdate in Provelt is automatically added using month-day-year. I can use year for publication date, but not all provide a publication date. Also, the titles you mentioned not having a consistency to upper case or lower case are done the way the paper is titled. I used the exact format of the source. AtsmeConsult 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, some of the books are listed using last names only, especially when there are several authors. I would think it would be far more important to list the references according to the way they are listed by the publisher-seller-source rather than trying to name them according to achieve consistency, especially if it makes it difficult to find the book.
Example: [28] - at the bottom of the page it shows how to cite the page. I thought listing the source as suggested was similar to including a CC license which require specific accreditation. Yes, or no? AtsmeConsult 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Finished the citations - used year for publication date, but left access date as is.
Hang on here... Sorry to play ping pong with this article, but I think this is definitely bad advice. There is no justification for changing references to become more vague when they are already specific with regards to date. Some references may only list the year, when it is a book, but others will include month and year, and others will list month, date, and year. Edits like this are definitely a move in the wrong direction. Please refer to WP:CITEHOW for specific content guidelines relating to dates in references. I can't find anything in the manual of style that says references shouldn't be as specific as possible because it looks bad. Sorry, it looks like you've already obliterated the dates in many of those references, but that work needs to be undone. Neil916 (Talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to books and journal articles when I suggested years should be used rather than having a few with months and years with the rest having just years. This advice does not apply to websites or news outlets where a full date and an access date should be used. I was also told that to be consistent, I should either have locations of publishers for all books or for none. As I mentioned above, I am far from an expert on referencing. You could ask Nikkimaria (who is) if she would check the references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I changed all the dates to maintain consistency as requested. I had completed everything requested before I read this post. What should I do now? AtsmeConsult 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dates restored. AtsmeConsult 20:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the author names so all are full names.
I originally quoted article titles in exactly the form used by the authors, but in my first foray into FAC, Bivalvia, I was told "consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titles". In fact I was given a lot of useful advice about formatting references by Sasata in that FAC if you want to look it up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "... a deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin similar to that of sharks although they are not of the same taxon." - I think it would be better to say "not closely related" here.
  • Having established the scientific name for the Chinese paddlefish, I think it would be better to stick to the vernacular name thereafter.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula" - Similarly with Polyodon spathula, American paddlefish might be better here.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula which are composed of extensive comb-like filaments believed to have inspired the etymology of the genus name, Polyodon, a Greek compound word meaning "many toothed." - This sentence would be better split. In fact the derivation of the word Polydon would be better elsewhere.
  • "...numerous small teeth less than 1 mm (0.039 in)" - (0.04 in) would be better.
  • Having stated "However, for most populations the median age is five to eight years and the maximum age is fourteen to eighteen years." it seems rather contradictory to say "Females do not begin spawning until they are seven to ten years old, some as late as sixteen to eighteen years old." Later again you state "American paddlefish can live to be 60 years or older." - It might be better to have all the information on longevity in one place.
  • "The growing importance of American paddlefish for their meat and roe became the catalyst for further development of culture techniques for aquaculture in the U.S. rather than restoration." - I'm not sure "restoration" is the right word here.
  • Link or explain "Spermiating", "polyculture",
  • The last paragraph of "Overfishing and habitat destruction" repeats some information in the previous paragraph, and it seems odd to have the sentence about the history of artificial propagation at the very end.
  • Does the paddlefish feed on the larvae of zebra mussels? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting question. Such studies are rare and speculative. The following link [29] names a few benthic species. Paddlefish larvae may feed on them, but again it's speculation. AtsmeConsult 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I added to the zebra mussel section regarding your question about veliger predation by paddlefish. If reviewers feel what I've added is not acceptable, we can always delete it. AtsmeConsult 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the changes you have made to the article and am now supporting its candidacy on the grounds of comprehensibility and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I am duly impressed with the thoroughness of each review, and how the suggestions have made this article that much better. AtsmeConsult 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Footnotes should appear right after punctuation, no spaces in between
  • FN6: this formatting doesn't match that of similar sources
  • FN7: EOL is neither an author nor technically a publisher - it's usually treated as a publication
  • FN9: why is this bolded?
  • FN8: MDNR is the publisher, not the author, and the version in the publisher parameter has a typo
  • FNs 3 and 13 are similar sources and should be similarly formatted (hint: 13 is closer to being right, but neither has the correct author listed - the Center is a publisher, a subdivision of USGS)
  • FN14: can truncate GBooks URL after pg=PA254. Also, Part III is a section title, but not part of the page number; "page=254" is sufficient there
  • FN15: Texas A&M is the publisher for the images only; the entity given as the work is the main publisher
  • FN16: BioScience is the journal title; 57 is the volume; 5 is the issue number; all of these and the doi belong in their own individual parameters. "Life Sciences" doesn't appear to belong in the citation at all
  • FN19: again, don't double publishers in author field. If there is no author given you can leave that out
  • FN21: the thing listed as the author isn't an author; the thing listed as a work isn't a work and has a typo in it
  • FN22: the thing listed as the author could be considered the author, but doesn't match what is given by the source
  • FN23: despite what the URL indicates, this is a separate publication, not a part of the snagging season page
  • FN24: the thing listed as the publisher is the work; the publisher is MDC, but you should spell that out
  • FN25: this is actually an online copy of a journal article, not a web source
  • Lamer means "Louisiana Marine Education Resources" - it's a work, not part of the publisher, and it's actually LaMER
  • FN32: journal title is incomplete, page numbers are doubled, everything that isn't the journal title shouldn't be in that parameter, you don't need to provide section name or author affiliation information. Same with FN33.
  • FN37: is a republisher, not the original publisher of this work.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN39: "press release" is a work type, but not a work title
  • FN40: need full date, Tulsa World is a work not a publisher
  • FN41: need full date, Outdoors is a section not a work, The Chattanoogan is a work not a publisher

Reluctant oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria, I learned a lot about proper referencing for WP during that session. I very much appreciated your helpful notes, and thank you for the time you invested. Hopefully, all the citations you mentioned are now correct. The FN#s won't be the same because I combined FN3 & FN13, and deleted another so your FN14 is actually FN12 now. AtsmeConsult 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Better, but still work to be done here:

  • FN2: there is actually a real author for this, but you have to dig around the site to find him. Also, your link goes to a specific page of the project - do you mean to cite only that page or the project as a whole?
  • Have we lost a few DOIs? Those are actually very helpful and should be provided when known, much like ISBNs for books
  • Be consistent about whether you include publishers for periodicals (journals, newspapers, magazines)
  • FN5: the title you give matches the URL, but it's not actually what the source itself says. Also, this is republished from a print publication, so you should give the details from that publication
  • FN6: still need to italicize the Latin name
  • The IUCN refs were actually fine before
  • FN11: the thing given as the author is not an author, the thing given as a work is not a work - both could technically be considered subdivisions of the publisher, but the Survey could also be considered a work
  • FN12: you use semicolons to separate authors here, but in most other refs you use commas - be consistent
  • FN14: BioScience is the journal title, not part of the article title
  • FN20: again, that title matches what is coded in the HTML, but not what the source actually says
  • FN23: this is a republication of a print source - you should provide the full publication information from that source
  • FN25, FN26: like FN5, these are from a print source originally. FN27 is closer to being right, but includes the volume number in the work parameter instead of its own
  • FN29: again, online republication, provide original source details
  • Sometimes you include "and" in your author list, sometimes it's commas all the way through - be consistent
  • FN32, FN37: also web republications of print sources
  • FN34: don't double publisher in author parameter
  • FN40: Outdoors is the section title, not the work title; you've taken out the actual work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, yowza - now I see why it's important to get the references right when you first add the inline citation with the prose. Going back over 40 references is a booger, especially when you suck at it like I do. Is there a citation check tool somewhere I can use? I made the changes, think I got them all done. I'll get better with practice, but right now, I'm a rusty bucket.

Source spot-check by Laser brain[edit]

  • Ref 3, verified but I found the info on p. 211 of the electronic book; please double-check this.
  • Ref 10b, verified/OK
  • Ref 22c, verified/OK
  • Ref 28, verified/OK
  • Ref 33, verified/OK

--Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Laser_brain, you were absolutely correct. I have no clue why I listed p 213 instead of p 211. It's fixed now. Thank you. Question - is there a tool available on Wiki for checking citation accuracy, or does it have to be done manually? AtsmeConsult 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It is done manually. I usually check for verification and also look out for any potential issues with close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron RAAF[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image check - all OK (2 points Done)

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

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

Tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I polished those two a bit and added your background info on the estimated date of creation. All OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Tks again, Joe -- good to see you back at FAC BTW! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey Joe, I just added a new image under Role and equipment -- would you be so kind as to verify licensing so everything's above board? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Flickr has a different license for this image, but that's not our problem. The image clearly meets "PD-USAF" requirements and is OK GermanJoe (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Belated tks, Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Support A few minor nitpicks:

  • a bit of overlinking: Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign, Frank_McNamara_(VC), Victoria_Cross, RAAF_Base_Amberley, No._82_Wing_RAAF, Far_East_Air_Force_(Royal_Air_Force), Boeing_Australia, Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet, and McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet.
    • I did that deliberately as the initial links are from the Role and equipment section up the top and the History section in which the dups appear is on the longish side. OTOH if you as someone more detached than myself from the article think the dups aren't necessary then I'm happy to remove them.
  • suggest using refbegin and refend templates for the long References list
    • Heh, I'll admit I'm not a fan of miniscule references (short cites in the Notes section aren't so bad) so I'd rather leave them unless the consensus is to reduce them... :-)
  • did some spotchecks of sources, all good
    • Always good to have that every so often, tks.

Excellent article, well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Many tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments I've contributed a bit to this article over the years, as well as to closely related topics, so I don't think that I'm uninvolved enough to vote. I think that the article is of a very high standard though. It's it's helpful, I'd like to offer the following comments for consideration:

  • The article doesn't currently seem to note why the F-111s were delayed (and were No. 1 Squadron personnel the unfortunate airmen sent to the US to train on the F-111s only to have to return home without them?)
    • Added a line on the delay; Lax and Stephens don't seem to spend much time on the impact it had the expectant pilot trainees.
  • The material on the introduction of the F-111 is focused mainly on the maintenance arrangements. While this is important, and part of the squadron's history, you could also weave in some material from Lax about how they were initially used (very carefully!), and how this evolved over time Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I thought the evolution bit might be too much to go into but did add a line about the initial caution exercised, via order straight from the top. :-) Tks for looking the article over, Nick, and your contribution to its development. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ian Rose: just one little question in the World War II section it a strength of 25 aircraft; at one stage it was to be renumbered as an RAF squadron, but this never eventuated.[89] as an RAF? or as a RAF which to me reads easier Gnangarra 10:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm, you've got me there... I'm used to treating it as if the initials are being pronounced but I've seen it written both ways. Do you happen to know if there's a MOS standard to follow?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I dont have an answer hence the question, as you correctly point out treating as initials R-A-F rather than colloquial word "raf" makes an the correct option. Though I suppose it could worded as ...was to be renamed as a squadron of the RAF, but... to bypass the question. Either way its so minor forget I asked very interesting read and its ready to be featured. Gnangarra 06:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • The details on the Super Hornet in the role and equipment section strike me as a bit too much, and even a bit too "rah-rah" when talking about engaging aerial and surface targets simultaneously. I'd delete everything beginning with its 20 mm armament up to the servicing details.
    • Well I think it's worth saying something about the armaments employed and the aircraft's capabilities, because that obviously has a bearing on the squadron's capabilities. The bit about simultaneous targeting in the air and on the ground seemed to follow naturally from mentioning the role of the second crew member. I mean I could've gone into much more detail on speed, range, the types and models of bombs and missiles carried, the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, and so on, but I thought that would indeed have been too much.
      • The whole bit seemed rather reminiscent of an official press release, IMO. Consider some rephrasing, but I'll support since it's really a matter of taste.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Tks Sturm. Quite understand we're you're coming from. Nothing comes to mind right now as far as rephrasing goes, but I'm sure given the squadron's continuing involvement in Iraq, the article won't be far from my thoughts for some time so you never know... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "eventuated" more common in AusEng than it is in AmEnglish? It strikes me as rather pretentious as I think of it as one of those passive verbs used to distance the action from the actor. I'd suggest a simple "happened" or "occurred".
    • No prob, will do.
  • Aside from these minor quibbles, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks for looking it over Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the article is brilliantly written. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

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

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

Comments by Ɱ

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

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

Image review

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

Other remarks

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

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

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

Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I think the article is meticulously written and properly referenced. There may be additional comments, but it looks great and should be promoted to FA.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Jimknut (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Contains everything I would expect to find in a featured article on a television show, clear, well written, broadly referenced. One tiny point: I don't think WP encourages the use of "The" at the start of section headings, though I can't find anything to that effect in the MoS. Perhaps you might consider saying just "First series" and "Second series". Tim riley talk 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I made the changes that you suggested. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I've made a minor tweak to one of the images, moving it from left to right. This is as per MoS, and also stops the bullet points appearing through the image. Nicely put together. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You're correct, the article does look better with the second season cast image on the right. Thanks for changing this and thanks for the support. Jimknut (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Have I missed the source review? Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I made some comments under 'Other Remarks'. I didn't really find any problems.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Message for ɱ: Thanks again for the support. Message for Graham Beards: Do you have any questions that I can answer? Jimknut (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


  • As mentioned in the last FAC, Find-a-Grave is really not a reliable source for biographical details, and in this particular case would seem to be supporting synthesis without context
    • The text with the Find-a-Grave citations has now been removed.
  • Some print sources are missing page numbers
    • I have now added in page numbers if applicable. Some of the online links show the actual newspaper page. For those I have added the page number. Others, however (such as the obituaries) show only the text from the newspapers and do not list a page number. Therefore, no page numbers are listed for these citations.
  • Generally the citation formatting is quite inconsistent. Similar sources should be similarly formatted.
    • I have made the formatting more consistent. Note that for the Los Angeles Times, which forms a large part of my citation I listed the location only with the earliest citation. This is per the advice of an earlier reviewer (for List of Temperatures Rising episodes). Further listing of the location seems redundant.
      • Actually, the formatting seems to have gotten worse, as a number of publication titles that should be italicized no longer are. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I've gone through them again. All newspaper titles are now in italics. I believe the citations are now formatted correctly.
  • IMDb is also not a reliable source for biographical details, particularly not a Trivia section
    • I have removed this section. However, for what's worth, the item from IMDb's trivia section on actress Nancy Fox states that she won her role on Temperatures Rising after she was spotted by Elizabeth Montgomery whereas all the newspaper articles that I have found state that William Asher (Montgomery's husband at the time) was the one that first spotted Fox. This bit of information was added to IMDb after I submitted it to them. It was Nancy Fox herself that told me about Montgomery making the discovery.
      • Unfortunately though you can't cite your conversations with a subject either, so now this is unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
        • But as I said, the section has now been removed.
  • MOS issues: long quotes should be blockquoted, don't need quote-initial ellipses, etc
    • There are only two long quotes in the document. I have now put them both into block quotes.
      • There are at least two long quotes that are not blockquoted, as well as other MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I have now placed these other two long quotes in blockquotes. There is also a long quote in footnote 9. I have left these in quotation marks simply because I think it looks better this way. As for the "other MOS issues" can you please be more specific as to what you are refering to?
  • I think that the article would benefit from further copy-editing - I'm noticing some grammatical errors like "who had had scored" as well as general awkward phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I corrected the "had had" bit. Other than that I ran the entire article through a grammar and spelling check (on Microsoft Word) and found nothing else wrong. As for "awkward phrasing" what specific items are you referring to? Let me know and I will correct them. Jimknut (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It's best not to rely on automated systems - they miss things like "daytime soap opera Days of Our Lives She would later". You might find it helpful to seek out a Guild member or someone else who can provide another set of eyes on the writing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I have made further edits of the text plus I made a request to the Guild for a review.Jimknut (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

() Comment: You should be aware that requests made at the GOCE Requests page often take over a month to copy-edit—though it might get done more quickly if you're lucky. Jimknut's request is currently (as of my timestamp) 36th out of 40. I recommend either withdrawing this nom or putting it {{on hold}} until the copy-edit request has been dealt with. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I read through the article and found very few mistakes, and none worse than minor spelling/arrangement corrections, certainly nothing worth stopping an FA review over. I know from experience that Nikkimaria always finds little issues and then recommends a full GOCE copyedit; I don't think that's necessary in this case.--ɱ (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the GOCE request. One of the Guild members, ATC, reviewed the article and made some corrections and also suggested several others. I have now made all the corrections that ATC suggested as well as those by Nikkimaria and other reviewers. Right now, with all of corrections made plus the support of four reviewers, I think the article is in excellent shape and quite worthy of FA consideration. Jimknut (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - the article needs copy editing. There are glitches, redundancies and ungrammatical constructions. A fresh pair of eyes is needed. Graham Beards (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Where do you see such errors? It's not helpful to simply state that there are some. Plus minor errors like the ones listed cannot possibly be significant enough to stop an article from reaching FA.--ɱ (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the errors, which I just corrected, had already been pointed out, and was said to be fixed. I also saw "series'" where the possessive was wrong. This sentence shows common issues "Despite some heavy promotion for the series' new concept the black comedy approach—especially with Paul Lynde—was apparently not what audiences wanted to see and the ratings fell well below the levels of the previous season". Too much is trying to put across in one sentence. And this is a mess "Reputedly, Asher and Screen Gems had a contract stipulation with the network to cancel Bewitched a year earlier than contracts stipulated, thereby allowing him the opportunity to develop the two new series." We see "contract stipulation" and "contracts stipulated" and a general muddling of logical flow. To find such problems at this late stage is disappointing. As I said, a fresh pair of eyes is needed. I suggest recruiting a competent copy editor. Graham Beards (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reworked the two sentences mentioned. Plus, I've had one copy editor from the Guild look at the article. What other suggestions can you make to improve it? Jimknut (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a thorough copy edit from top to bottom. This is the first sentence of the lead "Temperatures Rising (also known as The New Temperatures Rising Show) is an American television sitcom that ran on the ABC network from September 12, 1972 to August 29, 1974, during which time it was presented in three different formats and cast line-ups with a total of 46 episodes." Spot the redundancies. The prospects for promotion at this stage are not looking good. Graham Beards (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have contacted two friends (Randy Skretvedt and Frank Thompson) and asked them to look at the article and offer some suggestions. Both are published authors although neither is a Wikipedia contributor. At present time I'm awaiting their answers. Meanwhile, I'm at a loss to see what you consider redundant in that first sentence. Maybe I'm interpreting you incorrectly, but the impression I'm getting is that your comments are more condescending than constructive. The idea for all this (so I thought) is to help built up the article so it is worthy of FA status, not tear it down (especially with silly little guessing games - i.e. "Spot the redundancies") so that it not worthy of the FA promotion. Jimknut (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Following this, I can say I agree with all of the above thoughts, on the condescending manner, guessing game, and more, and I don't spot any problems whatsoever with the lead sentence. And though I am neither of those two consulted individuals, I too have had my fair share in publications. The article's English is fine, even if it doesn't match your English.--ɱ (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

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

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

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Well-written and neutral, it appears pretty comprehensive at first read. I remember this case in the media at the time. Will jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Right - cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending the sorting out of best copyright for images. A sobering and depressing story - well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support from Hamiltonstone. Good article on a distressing subject of socio-cultural significance in Australia. It was hard to read, but purely because of its subject matter.

  • "It is alleged Leigh and several other under-age girls". Should this read "It was alleged"? Is this really still a current allegation?
  • I have made some other edits - feel free to check. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much for your edits and support. Freikorp (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Brianboulton[edit]

Oppose: I am sorry to have to oppose, but I do not think that, at present, the prose meets the relevant FA criterion. I recognise the enormous amount of developmental work that has been done on the article, particularly by Freikorp, but it is not yet, in my view, the finished product. It's a great pity that the article did not receive a peer review – not that the nominators are in any way to blame, since it sat for two weeks at WP:PR without attracting comment. Please note for the future that I will almost always respond to a polite request for a peer review, unless the subject is professional wrestling.

Support: I am satisfied that the article is now worthy of promotion. Any further prose tweaks will be of a minor nature. This is an article that will tend to stay in the memory; that cheeky but enigmatic face won't easily be forgotten. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

Note -- I know there's been some discussion of referencing above but not sure that we've had a formal source review for formatting/reliability, or a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Pls let me know if I've missed something, otherwise I'd like to see both such checks carried out before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian. Some source checks were certainly done as part of the GA review, but unfortunately for me I think you're right regarding a lack of source checks at FAC (not that I hold that against anyone as there were plenty of other things that needed resolving at the time). As I am confident I have not, at least intentionally, used close paraphrasing or been misleading with my sources, I offered during both the GA review and here at FAC to email some or all of the pdf copies I have of offline newspaper and journal sources (I have a pdf copy of every offline source used except Coyle 2005 and Who Killed Leigh Leigh, but I can type out individual paragraphs or scan individual pages of the latter) to anyone who is interested in checking them. This offer still stands, though there are of course many online sources that you could do spot-checks with. I am willing to do anything that is required of me to have this article promoted, so don't hesitate to ask me for assistance. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose from Dank[edit]

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

  • You use "stated" a lot; I don't have any comment on that now, but I think we should test it for readability.
  • Ha! You're right. I changed 15 of the 40 uses of 'stated' to either 'said' 'saying' or 'wrote', depending on context. Freikorp (talk)
  • "whilst" takes a lot of heat at FAC
  • "offensive behaviour in relation to the 28 January assault": I'm not familiar with Australian police lingo, and maybe this is technical language that we have to preserve, but if not, then "offensive behaviour in the 28 January assault" would be better.
  • "have contributed to it being referred to as": There are more direct ways to say this.
  • Changed to "have led to it being termed a", but feel free to completely reword if you think of something better. Freikorp (talk)
  • "The "unsustainable assumption" that Leigh consented to sex was the turning point in her being blamed for her own assault and murder": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • The quote is from the two scholars mentioned in the preceding sentences. I'm trying to say that according to the scholars, the belief that Leigh consented to sex was an "unsustainable assumption", and that it was this assumption that led to her being blamed for her own attack - as indicated by the rest of the sentence "because she was supposedly sexually promiscuous, Leigh had somehow "asked for [the attack]". Freikorp (talk)
  • "It took police over three months to press charges against Webster, even though they had established within 10 days that he had lied about his whereabouts, had publicly stated his intention to rape Leigh, and had had the opportunity to commit the crime.": That's my version; the longer version seemed unwieldy, but feel free to revert.
  • Some units (such as 100 metres) may need conversions.
  • Done for 100 metres. I didn't do it for the second use of 2.8 metres as it is converted earlier, or the use of 1.3 meters in the same sentence as since 2.8 was converted earlier, it should be obvious to the reader that 1.3 is a little less than half of 2.8 and therefore a little less than half of the earlier conversion, though if someone else feels this should be converted anyway it won't bother me. Freikorp (talk)
  • Thanks for your review and edits Dank. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy to help. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "The epithet "slut" in a pretrial psychological report also became a topic of focus for the media" - source?
  • Check MOS issues related to quotes - for example, we don't typically enclose ellipses in parentheses
  • FN34: the university is a publisher not a publication, shouldn't be italicized. There are a few other instances of this type of error - please check and correct
  • Brien citation should include volume and issue number
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • All issues addressed, though I couldn't find any other instances of a publisher being italicised besides the one you mentioned. I may have missed something that would be obvious to others, just point it out to me and i'll fix it. Freikorp (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Source spot-check from Laser brain[edit]

  • Ref 14a, close paraphrasing
  • Source: "where an uncertain number of young people - two 10-year-olds at one point"
  • Article text: "though it was reported that two 10-year-olds were present at one point."
  • Ref 16a, close paraphrasing
  • Source: "She had a written invitation and permission from her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party."
  • Article text: "Leigh's mother was told there would be responsible adults present at the party."
  • Ref 17d, close paraphrasing. Additionally, "nationally at high schools across the country" is redundant and poor writing.
  • Source: "Despite these denials, the staff at Newcastle High School (where both Leigh and Webster had been students) found the connection too close and did not book the play for their students. Property was, however, extremely successful in other schools and theatres in Newcastle (as it was on its subsequent lengthy tour of the region and around Australia) and won a number of prestigious awards."
  • Article text: "The play was shown at various high schools in the Newcastle area, and following its positive reception, was shown nationally at high schools across the country, winning several awards. However, Newcastle High School, where both Leigh and Webster had been students, declined to show it."
  • Ref 74a, OK
  • Source: "In February 2004 the Parole Board declined to parole this individual because of recommendations made by the Serious Offenders Review Council that he needed to undertake work release."
  • Article text: "Webster first applied for parole in February 2004. His application was denied on the grounds he needed to first undertake work release."
  • Ref 78
  • Source text: "the charges were dismissed in April this year because of a lack of evidence."
  • Article text: "He was released from prison in May 2005 after the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence."

Batting 0-for-5 here—I strongly urge this be given a thorough source edit by an independent editor and copyedited for close paraphrasing as needed. I realize referring to a couple of these as close paraphrasing might be debatable, but I think we can do better in terms of distance from the source text. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Luo Yigu[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first wife of later Chinese communist political leader Mao Zedong. Little is known of her, and thus this is a fairly short article. It was ignored during its prior FAC (summer 2013) so it would be great if people could give it a look over and a review this time. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone. One query. The article states "The wedding ceremony culminated with the guests entering the bridal chamber, where they would make various sexual references and innuendos, led by a figure with his face painted black.[7] The bride had to show the bloodstains on the bed sheets from her wedding night to prove that her hymen had been broken during sexual intercourse, and that she had therefore been a virgin" and cites this text to Pantsov and Levine. Are we clear whether the authors are describing a traditional ceremony of the period in general, or are they saying that these specific rituals were definitely followed in the case of this particular wedding. If the former, suggest wording be tweaked to begin "The wedding ceremony would have culminated..." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Hamiltonstone. I've consulted the Pantsov and Levine biography, and unfortunately it does not make clear whether they are referring to the specific rituals that Mao and Luo went through or whether they are instead discussing the general wedding rituals of that time and place. Given that the wedding rituals are not discussed in Red Star Over China however, I think it apparent that the latter is almost certainly the case, so I have made the minor correction that you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Madalibi[edit]

Comment – Sounds like a fine piece of work considering how little info there is on her. I will try to read the article more closely later. For now just one question: why is her name given as Luo Yigu when the pinyin transliteration gives her name as Luo Yixiu? If this is more than a mistake, shouldn't this discrepancy be explained somewhere in the article? Madalibi (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comment, Madalibi. I am far from being an expert in Chinese transliteration, although Pantsov and Levine, whose biography of Mao is the most up-to-date and thoroughly researched available in the English language, renders her name as "Luo Yigu", and thus I have followed their example. I thus presume that that is the Pinyin name, and that there is therefore a mistake in the article, which I have now corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The Chinese characters 一秀 are unambiguously pronounced "Yixiu", not "Yigu", so this is not a simple pinyin mistake. The French, Norwegian, and Swedish pages have "Luo Yixiu", whereas the Ripuarian page and the Bahasa Indonesian page (whose biography is copied on that of the English page) have Luo Yigu. A Google search for "Luo Yigu" leads to Wikipedia and mirror pages, whereas a search for "Luo Yixiu," leads to many pages on Mao's first wife that are not based on Wikipedia. Based on this, I'd say "Luo Yigu" is most likely a mistake. If you have access to Pantsov and Levine's book, could you check their index carefully to see what they say about Luo's name, or whether they explain why they call her Luo Yigu instead of Luo Yixiu? That way we can clarify this unusual issue! And how do the other books call her? Madalibi (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Oddly, Ross Terrill in his Mao: A Biography (1980), Clare Hollingworth in her Mao and the Men Against Him (1985), and Lee Feigon in his Mao: A Reinterpretation (2002), don't actually mention her name. Jung Chang and John Halliday in their (deeply problematic) book, Mao: The Untold Story (2005) describe her only as "Woman Luo" and do not use her personal name. However, in their book, Mao: The True Story (2012), Pantsov and Levine very explicitly refer to her as "Luo Yigu" with no mention at all made of "Luo Yixiu"; they do not clarify why they use this spelling, and their referencing on this issue links back to Edgar Snow's original Red Star Over China as well as to several Chinese-language sources. A perplexing issue, but I shall try to consult a copy of another authoritative text, Philip Short's biography of Mao, over the coming week. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked, and Philip Short simply refers to her as "Miss Luo". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for looking into this issue, and sorry for being out of touch for so long! What you tell us means that we have four different names on our hands: Luo Yigu, Luo Yixiu, Woman Luo, and Miss Luo. The last two are translations of Luo shi 罗氏 ("[woman] surnamed Luo"), in which shi means family name, as Chinese women did not (and still do not) adopt their husband's surname after marriage. The fact that Short and Chang & Halliday both refer to her as "Luoshi" probably means that her personal name is not well known. Note, however, that the difference between "Yixiu" and "Yigu" is not a difference in spelling. Yixiu and Yigu are Romanizations of different characters. Yixiu is 一秀, whereas Yigu would probably be 一姑, in which gu 姑 means "girl". I must admit I have no idea how to handle this kind of issue. Could we readjust the lead and the relevant sections to say that different sources refer to her by different names (ironically, we're still missing a reliable source for Luo Yixiu)? And could we, without falling into original research, state that most biographies of Mao do not even give her last name? Madalibi (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Reasonable sources for Luo Yixiu are not lacking, and it is important to get this right, especially if "Yigu" is more a generic term than a personal name, as Madalibi suggests. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have requested that an academic friend of mine contact Steven Levine directly (his professional email address can be found here) to see if the Sinologist (as co-author of Mao: The True Story) might be able to shed some light on this particular issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, apparently Levine has responded, asserting that he was unsure on this issue himself, because he was translating Pantsov's Russian-language work. Could it be that there has been a problem in the translation from Mandarin to Russian to English, thus rendering "Luo Yixiu" as "Luo Yigu" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have incorporated two of the sources which User:Johnbod has identified using Google Books into this article. While both should probably count as "reliable sources", neither has however been authored by a scholar who is recognised as a specialist on Mao, and neither detail where they obtained their information from; indeed, given the dates of their authorship (2009 and 2013), it might be suggested that they were actually authored using Wikipedia as a partial basis, thus meaning that their use of "Luo Yixiu" is not particularly reliable here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Madalibi here. There's no dispute about her Chinese name. Virtually all Chinese sources record her name as , which is unambiguously transliterated as Luo Yixiu. As Johnbod pointed out, many English sources use the Luo Yixiu spelling. In fact, Pantsov is the only book I can find that spells her name as "Luo Yigu". -Zanhe (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
So do we have a consensus to rename the article "Luo Yixiu" ? Johnbod, Madalibi, Zanhe ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Good for me Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me too. Madalibi (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I will go ahead and make the move. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you now consider offering a support/oppose opinion, Madalibi ? No pressure to do so if you'd rather not, though! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Midnightblueowl, and thank you for reminding me of my commitment! I'm sorry for never giving the article a close reading as I said I would. Here are my detailed comments.
Writing style (mostly)

  • Like Mao, to whom she was distantly related, she was from the area around Shaoshan, Hunan, in south central China, and came from an impoverished local landowning family. It's unclear whether "like Mao" extends to the end of the sentence: did both Mao and Luo come from "an impoverished local landowning family"? If so, then this sentence contradicts the article on Mao, which states that Mao's father was an "impoverished peasant who had become one of the wealthiest farmers in Shaoshan." If not, the grammar should be clarified.
    • Mao's family certainly weren't impoverished, so we must avoid giving that impression here. But I'm nevertheless not entirely sure of the best way to change this particular sentence without it losing its readability. Anyone got any suggestions on this one ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe this? "She came from an impoverished local landowning family from the area around Shaoshan, Hunan, in south central China, the same region as Mao, to whom she was distantly related." Madalibi (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I've gone with "Coming from the area around Shaoshan, Hunan, in south central China – the same region as Mao – her family were impoverished local landowners." I believe that this reads fairly smoothly, and removes the section on the relation between Mao and Luo, because an editor has elsewhere on this page questioned the appropriateness of referring to the couple as "distantly related" given that all human beings are distantly related to one another. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ...although Mao went through with the wedding ceremony...: "went through" sounds too colloquial for an encyclopedia. I also think the semi-colon (";") just before this clause should be replaced by a period ("."), because the two halves of the sentence are neither grammatically nor logically related.
    • I've changed "went through" to "too part", but I'm not really sure that that is appropriate either. The semi-colon has been converted into a full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me! Madalibi (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Socially disgraced, she moved in and lived with Mao's parents for two years...: considering Mao's age and Chinese customs, the bride would have been expected to move in with the Mao family regardless of whether Mao accepted her as his bride. In other words, she didn't move in with his parents because she was socially disgraced, but because this was the normal thing to do. Cut "moved in and"?
  • ... before her death from dysentery: "until she died of dysentery" would sound both clearer and more fluid.
  • He would remarry a further three times: just "he would remarry three times" or "he would marry three more times" would do the job.
  • ...eventually entering communist politics: I'm not sure there was a field called "communist politics" that Mao could enter at the time. Can you think of another wording?
  • Luo Yixiu's name meant "First Daughter": "Yigu", not "Yixiu", means first daughter; this statement is sourced to Pantsov and Levine, but our new consensus is that they were probably wrong about Luo's name, so this claim should either be deleted or added to the textual note that explains her name.
    • Ah, interesting point. I have added this information to the textual note. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ...that the Luo family were locally important: here I would use the singular, as the Luo family was probably important as a unit rather than for the totality of its members.
  • the Luo family house, with the Luo family being socially expected...: this use of "with" at the beginning of a clause is weak.
  • Luo Helou was happy to see his eldest daughter married: as an independent sentence, this should come after a period, not a semicolon.
  • Following this, gifts were exchanged, and the marriage contract signed, after which the marriage was considered inviolable. "Following this" seems unnecessary, and the sentence is too passive. Could reword as "The two families exchanged gifts and signed the marriage contract, after which..."
    • I've made the change and introduced your suggested wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • marriage to Wang had been ruled out by a local geomancer because their horoscopes were incompatible: geomancer (who divines based on signs from the ground) and horoscope are probably the wrong words. Sinologists sometimes use "geomancer" to refer to fengshui masters, so this is probably what Levine's translation of Pantsov's book was trying to convey. Fortune-teller or diviner (for geomancer) might be better in this context, though of course we have to be careful not to deviate too far from our reliable source. "Horoscope" probably refers to Mao and Wang's "eight characters" (bazi 八字), two each for their year, month, day, and hour of birth. Would you agree to replacing the link to horoscope with a piped link to either Chinese astrology or the Four Pillars of Destiny (= bazi)?
  • Mao agreed to go through with the marriage to Luo: a bit wordy, and "go through" is colloquial. "Mao agreed to marry Luo"?
    • Oops; looks like I missed this one. Another good point, I have changed the prose to your recommendation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There, her veil would be removed...: because the nearby sentences are in the past perfect, this should read "would have been removed"
  • to the ancestral altar: this ritual meant that the newlyweds were introducing themselves to the Maos' paternal ancestors: specify "to the groom's ancestral altar"? You could also add a piped link either to Ancestor veneration in China.
    • Great link; I have also made the prose alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • where they would make various sexual references and innuendos: "where they would have made"
  • Mao Zedong returned home: do we know when and why? And to get rid of the semicolon after "home", could you reword to "When Mao returned home [+ explanation of when or why?], his father forgave him..."
  • his son's studies at the Dongshan Higher Primary School: here could you just confirm that "primary school" is right? After all, Mao was 14 at the time!
    • It was indeed; according to the English-language biographical sources, Mao would actually feel alienated from the other students as a result of his age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Good! Just making sure. Madalibi (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Shaoshanchong: this name appears at the end of the "Married life" section and in an image caption, but it is not explained. How does it differ from Shaoshan?
    • According to Pantsov and Levine (p. 11), Mao was born and lived in the village of Shaoshanchong, which is near to both the town of Shaoshan and Shaoshan mountain, the geographical feature which gives the settlements their names. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for looking this up! This probably deserves a brief mention in the article where Shaoshanchong is mentioned. Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This [Lee Feigon's] idea was also supported by journalist and sinologist Clare Hollingworth. The phrasing makes it sound as though Hollingworth supported Feigon's idea after having heard of it, but Hollingworth wrote in 1985 and Feigon in 2002.
    • Good point; I will make an alteration to the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mao would proceed to marry a further three wives...: "would proceed to" sounds wordy and "a further three wives" sounds heavy. "Would marry three more times", "would take three more wives" or something of the sort would sound better.
    • Another good point; once again I have altered the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That should be it for now. After these issues are solved, I will be glad to support the article. Madalibi (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up on writing style:

  • Although Mao took part in the wedding ceremony, he was unhappy with the marriage, never consummating it and refusing to live with his wife: the section on "Married life" starts by saying that "According to what he told Snow, Mao refused to live with his wife, and claimed that they never consummated their marriage." The lede should not present Mao's account as fact. This point will become more important when we integrate the Chinese sources into the article, because they claim that despite what he told Snow, Mao did live with Luo intermittently after their marriage.
    • I've made a small addition to the lede here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Born on October 20, 1889, Luo Yixiu's father...: now that the phrase about Luo Yixiu's name is gone, this no longer makes sense.
    • Very good point! I have corrected the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • historian Lee Feigon asserted: here I'm really getting into minor details, but you should probably use a more neutral verb than "asserted" (see WP:SAY).
  • ... Mao Yichang, who decided to deal with his son in a manner typical of the time, through forcing him into an arranged marriage: to my admittedly non-native ears, "dealing with someone through [verb]-ing" sounds awkward: replace "through" with "by"?
  • He also desired a helper to assist his own wife: "a helper to assist" may be redundant: replace with "a helper for his own wife"?
  • the Luo family would have been socially expected to accept the marriage proposal immediately: "socially expected", "culturally expected": why not just "expected"?
    • I disagree on this point; if we simply use "expected", then some readers might assume that the Mao family simply expected an affirmitive answer from the Luo family, whereas – if I understand the source correctly – it was actually a social convention that the woman's family would accept the proposal of marriage. Thus, I think that referring to it as being "socially expected" conveys the necessary infomation in a way that simply using "expected" does not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • To me "the family would have been expected" was impersonal, so it naturally referred to social expectations, but some readers may disagree with my interpretation, so let's keep "socially" as you suggest! Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • after which the marriage was considered inviolable: not sure "inviolable" is the right word. Do you mean that after these procedures, the marriage agreement was considered established?
    • I've used "inviolable" here because it is the term which Pantsov and Levine use; they do not offer any further details on this particular point, I am afraid. That being the case, I would recommend that we stick with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with that too. Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • According to tradition, a display of fireworks would probably have taken place: "According to tradition" is probably redundant here, as this entire account is about how a wedding would have proceeded "under rural Hunanese custom".
    • I appreciate you point, but if my memory serves me correctly, that "According to tradition" was put in by myself in response to another FAC reviewer's comments, so I think it best that it remain in place, unless you have any staunch objections ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • No staunch objections on this one either. Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mao would marry three more wives over the course of his life. In December 1920 he married Yang Kaihui; in May 1928 he married He Zizhen; and in November 1939 he wedded Jiang Qing: "marry a wife" is a pleonasm: "marry three more women"? And to avoid using the verb "marry" three times in the same sentence, could simplify to "Mao would marry three more women over the course of his life: Yang Kaihui in December 1920, He Zizhen in May 1928, and Jiang Qing in November 1939."
  • Alexander V. Pantsov and Stephen I. Levine asserted that her name was "Luo Yigu": here "asserted" may be right (despite WP:SAY), but at least one of the Chinese sources I found uses the name "Luo Yigu" (the same as Pantsov and Levine), so a more neutral verb may be necessary after all.
  • He would remarry three more times: he had never remarried before, so here we need either "He would marry three more times" or "He would remarry three times". Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

More substantial issues

  • The Chinese page on Luo Yixiu and a Chinese book I found in the Google search posted by Crisco 1492 claim that the wedding took place in 1907, not 1908. By East Asian age reckoning, in which you're one year old as soon as you're born, Luo Yixiu would indeed have been 18 at the time. By this account, she lived at the Maos' place for three years, not two. That book also claims that Mao did live with Luo in his parents' home for a while, and that he even wrote a poem about her after her death. In 1950, he sent his grandson Mao Anying to visit Luo Yixiu's uncle in Shaoshan. Unfortunately it doesn't cite any source.
  • Interestingly, a semi-scholarly article by Lü Chun 吕春 called "Six Women who Influenced Mao Zedong" 影响毛泽东一生的六位女性 (in Chinese), published in Dangshi wenyuan 党史文苑 (a journal on CCP history) in 2009, states that Luo Yixiu was the eldest daughter and could also therefore be called Yigu. After Pantsov and Levine, I think this is the first reliable source we find to support the name Yigu. The section on Luo (entitled "Ms. Luo: a victim of arranged marriage") is brief, but it explains the family relation between Mao and Luo and gives a few details on her behavior when she lived at the Maos' place. Here dates of birth and death appear to come from the Mao family genealogy.
  • I also found an article (Chinese) entirely devoted to Mao's first marriage. The reference is Hu Changming 胡长明 and Liu Shengsheng 刘胜生, "A few historical facts about Mao Zedong's first marriage" 毛泽东第一次婚姻的若干史实, Research on Mao Zedong Thought 毛泽东思想研究, 1996.2: 111-114. I managed to download the pdf, but I don't have time to read it until this coming week. A quick reading indicates that Luo Yixiu was Luo Helou's eldest daughter, and that Luo Helou's wife was surnamed Mao and was the daughter of Mao Yongtang, one of Mao Zedong's great-grandfathers. This article claims the wedding took place on 1908, based on deduction from the age of the newlyweds. Luo Helou's dates are 1871-1943. As for Mao's opposition to arranged marriage, it appears that in 1919 he wrote more than 10 newspaper articles following the suicide of a girl in Changsha in protest against arranged marriage. There are more details (location of Luo's tomb, several later visits to his former father-in-law, posthumous adoption of a son [also mentioned in Lü Chun's article], etc.), but I'm out of time. I can do the detailed work this coming week when I have more time on my hands. Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • These sources are great Madalibi; thank you for finding them. We will need to discuss how they might best be integrated into this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes! I will read them closely tomorrow morning, China time. Madalibi (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Sounds good! Although there's no rush on my behalf. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have started to integrate information from Hu and Liu's text into the article (here's the diff). This is taking more time than I thought because Hu and Liu mention all kinds of facts and issues that are not addressed in this article, and I'm not sure how to integrate them properly. I will continue tomorrow. In the mean time, I have thought of a new content question:

  • Mao Zedong had taken a rebellious attitude towards his disciplinarian father Mao Yichang: after reading Hu and Liu, this sentence seems a bit abrupt to begin a section. What was he rebellious about? It seems that in 1906 Mao Zedong forcefully quit the Mao lineage school because he didn't like the teaching style of the main instructor. Despite his father's protests and beatings, he stayed out of school until 1909. Hu and Liu see the arranged marriage as a way of forcing MZD to take responsibilities. Could you confirm the content of MZD's conflicts with his father and assess whether Hu and Liu's interpretation makes sense?
  • Hu and Liu also say that Mao went back to school at the Shaoshan Dongmaotang 韶山东茅塘 (very near his place) in 1909, possibly as a wa to avoid married life. Can this be confirmed?
    • According to Pantsov and Levine (pp. 25–26), Mao "ran away from home and lived for a year in the house of an unemployed student, also in Shaoshan. He continued his avid reading[...]". They then add that Mao only requested that he proceed to school (the Dongshan Higher Primary School, which was fifteen miles from Shaoshan), in the fall of 1910. There is no mention of him attending Shaoshan Dongmaotang in 1909. From Short (p. 30) we instead have "He started studying again, this time at a private school in the village run by an elderly scholar who was a clansman, and shortly after his fifteenth birthday, told his father he no longer wished to be apprenticed at Xiangtan. He wanted to enrol at junior middle school instead". These accounts to be in slight conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I may have other questions as I keep working on the article. Madalibi (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Image check[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

Is this a hard and fast rule, or – as I get the impression from reading WP:LEADLENGTH – more of a guideline ? I feel that the current three paragraph system works well in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a recommendation, but one I strongly suggest following here. The article is 1068 words as of the time of writing. 250 of those words are in the lead. A full quarter of the article is in the lead... don't you think that's a bit much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, it would be possible to cut material out, although I fear that this would be to the detriment of the article itself. For instance the names of Mao's later wives could be expunged and the third lede paragraph thus amalgamated into the second. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay Crisco 1492, I have gone ahead and made the suggested change. I think it looks alright, but do let me know if you have any further comments. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hoping to stop by for some more comments next week. Am out of town right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently not as loose as my memory right now. I'll have to visit later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by Crisco 1492

  • "Mao Ligu" in the infobox... far as I know, Chinese women don't take on their husband's family names. Having the same family name for a husband and wife would be considered incest
  • Although displeased by the arrangement, Mao agreed to go through with it. - We're not on Wang anymore, so "it" has to be restated
    • Agreed, and done.