Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



2003 Sri Lanka cyclone[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HMS Formidable (67)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

HMS Formidable was one of the six armoured carriers that the UK began building before World War 2. She had a very active role during the war which included service in the Mediterranean, Home, Far Eastern and Pacific Fleets against the Italians, Germans, Vichy French and Japanese. Despite her armoured flight deck, she was badly damaged by German dive bombers. She was worn out by her wartime service and was scrapped as uneconomical to repair in 1953 after a brief period ferrying troops about shortly after the end of the war. The article passed a thorough MilHist A-class review last month and hopefully doesn't require much additional work to pass the FAC criteria. As always, I'm looking for AmEng spelling in a BritEng article and any jargon that should be explained better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments This is a very comprehensive article - nice work. I have the following comments:

  • "built for the Royal Navy before World War II" - seems a bit confusing given that the next sentence states she was completed in 1940 (replace 'built' with 'ordered' or similar perhaps?)
  • "the ship was unable to engage the Japanese fleet when it attacked British forces in the Indian Ocean raid." - not sure that 'unable' is the right word: the British fleet didn't engage the Japanese due to chance and miscalulations rather an inability to attack (though it's just as well that it didn't given how badly the British aircraft would have been outclassed)
  • "was determined not to simply modify the previous Ark Royal design up to the full limit allowed by the Second London Naval Treaty" - some context is needed here I think
  • More generally, the first para of the 'Background and description' section should be tweaked so that it explicitly states that it's talking about Formidable's design - this is implied, but never stated
  • "The ship could accommodate up to 54 aircraft rather than the intended 36 after the adoption of "outriggers" on the flight deck" - were these part of the initial design?
  • "The additional crewmen, maintenance personnel" - how many men did these add to her crew?
  • "During the Evacuation of Greece, Formidable provided air cover for Convoy GA-15 on 29 April" - just to clarify, was this her only role in the operation? (lots of the Mediterranean Fleet seems to have operated around Crete to cover the evacuation)
  • "The ship arrived at Colombo, Ceylon, on 24 May " - I don't think that this date can be right given that the Indian Ocean Raid took place in early April; should this be 24 March?
  • "Somerville received word " - suggest replacing 'word' (which sounds like a rumour) with 'intelligence' (which is presumably what he received - most likely decoded signals?)
  • "when the Japanese failed to appear" - sounds a bit odd - it implies that the Japanese were expected to stick to whatever schedule the British estimated they'd follow
  • "A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them" - what's meant by 'them' here?
  • " As in Husky, their role was to protect the invasion fleet from interference by the Italian Navy" - perhaps note that this didn't end up being needed given that the Italian Navy surrendered to the Allies?
  • "She later sailed to Gibraltar, arriving on 21 September to begin a refit that lasted until 1 January 1945" - did the ship receive special modifications for tropical service, and service against the Japanese, at this time as was common for RN ships selected for the British Pacific Fleet?
  • I'd suggest breaking the long 'Pacific operations' section into several sections/sub-sections
  • "The Zero first strafed the flight deck before any of Formidable's guns could open fire and then turned sharply to dive into the forward flight deck despite the ship's hard turn to starboard. The fighter released a bomb shortly before it would have impacted the deck and was destroyed by the bomb's blast. Some of the ship's guns hit the Zero as it turned at an altitude of 700 feet (213.4 m) and set it afire, but they failed to destroy it before it could dive into the ship" - these sentences are a bit overly-complex and confusing (it's not clear whether the fighter struck the ship, or was destroyed by its own bomb beforehand). I'd suggest trying to get this down to a sentence or two (the caption of the photo also says that the ship was struck by the kamikaze)
  • "This was filled by wood and concrete and covered by thin steel plates tack-welded to the deck so that she was able to operate aircraft by 17:00 and steam at a speed of 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph). " - as this sentence is about the repairs, I'd suggest leading off with some explicit wording rather than the unclear 'this'
  • "in concert with the Cockatoo Island Dockyard" - what's meant by this? Was she repaired at Cockatoo Island as well as Garden Island (which would have been unusual given that Cockatoo Island could only really handle cruiser-sized ships and smaller), or did Cockatoo Island repair parts of the ship/contribute workmen?
  • Is it possible to say more about the condition of the ship when she was inspected after the war? From memory, the combination of the attacks of Crete and Okinawa were found to have inflicted severe damage on her basic structures Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (UK Crown Copyright, USGov).

  • Sources and authors provided - OK.
  • While IWM photos are offered under a non-commercial license, their usage as free "Crown Copyright" material is within our guidelines (afaik), all such photos are tagged appropriately - OK.
  • fixed 2 damaged IWM templates on Commons (missing "oid" parameter) - cache needs to be purged, but OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

William H. Seward[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... William Seward, who in addition to being one of the most important secretaries of state, had a lengthy career as senator and governor of New York. Perhaps best remembered for "Seward's Folly"--the purchase of Alaska--he did as much as any one did to prevent foreign intervention in the American Civil War, that could have reversed the result.Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. Very well written biography of an important figure. It's well organized and based on a variety of serious academic sources. I have a few stylistic comments:
  • After "United States" is used once I like to use "U.S." to minimize redundancy. I wish our country had a less clunky name, of course.
  • "ill-treatment" I don't think this would be hyphenated?
  • "illegally-cast ballots" I don't like hyphenating after an adverb.
  • "In that era, the annual message by the New York governor was published and discussed to an extent that only a president's would be today." I like this.
  • "slavecatchers" Is this even a word? I've never heard it and Merriam-Webster doesn't include it.
  • "former president Adams" Something here should be capitalized, shouldn't it?
  • Sumner attack — is this due weight? It's a whole paragraph which gives little attention to Seward.
  • "Lincoln faced three major opponents: A split in the Democratic Party" Every style guide says not to capitalize after a colon.
  • "On Election Day, Lincoln carried most Northern states, Breckenridge all Southern, Bell three border states, and Douglas Missouri—the only state Seward campaigned in that Lincoln did not win." This sentence is pretty messy and confusing.
  • "By then, he was known to be Secretary of State-designate" Nice to see my cameo in this article, but most style guides would put either a dash before it, or hyphens throughout.
  • "he would retire, as too old to bear the years of warfare in the Republican Party that would result" I don't think "warfare" is ever the right word for intrasectional squabbles.
  • "and the ultra [that is, Radical] Republicans" Nice.
  • "Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor" This is the first time in my life I've seem "x harbor" and it sounds weird to me. It's either a proper capitalized term or a neologism we'd like to avoid ("the harbor at Charleston"?).
  • "Lincoln drafted a reply indicating that whatever policy was adopted, "I must do it", though he never sent it, but met with Seward instead, and what passed between them is not known." This could live comfortably as two sentences.
  • "When in April 1861, the Confederacy announced that it would authorize privateers, Seward sent word to the American representatives abroad that the U.S. would become party to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856, outlawing such vessels, but Britain required that, if the U.S. were to become a party, the rectification would no require action to be taken against Confederate vessels." This sentence is much too long, although I'm glad to see "U.S." at this point in the article.
  • "former slave Harriet Tubman" Is there a better false title for Tubman?
  • "William Seward rests" I thought this was a word to avoid but I'm too lazy to check...
  • "Seward remained controversial in death, dividing his contemporaries." This sentence seems wrong to me; by being controversial he's dividing someone, in death I'd assume by his contemporaries.
  • "One, "John Quincy Adams Seward" dreamed" Is there a comma missing here?
  • "The other, "Thurlow Weed Seward", cut backroom deals over cigars and a bottle, and was a pragmatist who often settled for half a loaf when the whole was not achievable." I like this paragraph.
  • I like the footnotes/citations division exactly as-is.
  • The "further reading" section seems like old Wikipedia design-by-committee style. I think you'll know what I mean. —Designate (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll work through these in the next few days. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review [Light version][edit]

No image here can possibly have copyright concerns (Well, the medal theoretically could, but I checked, and it didn't). I haven't checked the image description pages, and it's possible one is misdocumented, but I'm quite certain of the copyright status of everything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That Robinson medal was shown by the coin dealer who's been kind enough to grant us a license, oh, a year ago, and I was just waiting for the chance to use it! Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a great asset to the article, and breaks up the [largely necessary] monotony of the image types a bit, which is always good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing in full:
  • Because of a screwy Wikipedia bug, converting File:Seward_full_face.tif to JPEG will make it clearer and sharper. Wikipedia only sharpens JPEG thumbnails. It's a pain, I know. Also, I'd be inclined to leave it uncropped - that's his actual signature below the image in the original.
  • I said I'd do restorations of a couple images. That's still happening, I just needed a wikibreak for a little bit.
Yeah. Very, very minor things. I haven't reviewed text or sources, so I won't declare support, which is a positive statement, but I found no significant issues, and I see no reason why this shouldn't pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

As usual, my focus is on references and reference formatting:

  • The two letters from the University of Rochester special collection don't appear to have their reference entries formatted in any way. Once that's taken care of, if these have been assigned an OCLC number or any other identifier, that's especially helpful for historical documents that aren't readily available.
  • The two subdivisions of the bibliography aren't formatted the same way. "Books" is indented and appears without punctuation; "Other sources" is not indented and has a closing colon.
  • You mix ISBN 10 and ISBN 13. The ISBN converter makes that an exceedingly easy fix.
  • My reading of the manual of style suggests that the internal quotation marks in the title of the Valone source should be replaced with single quote marks (as it appears withing the double quote marked title).
  • I'm not fond of this sort of expansive Further Reading section; if these other sources have novel information not adequately presented in the article, then they should be referenced, and that information included. In general, I try to avoid just listing random other material on the topic unless there's something significant about the works. That there are nearly as many sources included in Further Reading as actually cited in the article raises a concern about whether this represents a comprehensive survey of the literature.
  • Likewise, the External Links. Things like the Project Gutenberg link, I find entirely appropriate. On the other hand, I'm not sure what's gained by linking to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on the topic, and so on.

Outside of referencing, I'm a bit concerned that the "Legacy" section is entirely silent on memorials or commemorations. While I realize there are quite a few, some brief overview in prose would be nice, instead of just the See Also link. That would also allow mention of things like the 1909 postage stamp commemorating Seward, issued in conjunction with the Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition. Speaking of the See Also link, having a single article to cover both works by Seward and memorials to Seward does not strike me as conventional practice. I have not reviewed the prose at all, and remain neutral on promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 29 September 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 ([1]) 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]

Overall, looks pretty good. Here's some suggestions.....

  • "skateboarding/adventure video game"..... should be a comma or "and" per WP:SLASH
  • I tried a hyphen. Would that be okay? The comma definitely wouldn't work with all else unchanged, and the "and" would be a bit awkward. Tezero (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "with role-playing elements"..... something about this doesn't read very well
  • Reworded. Tezero (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Real-life pros"..... skateboarders would be a better term than "pros"
  • Done, but kept "professional" to specify that they weren't just random skaters. Tezero (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Professionals" would be better to use than "pros"
  • Well, they're referred to as simply "pros" throughout the game, but done for formality. Hmm... Tezero (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mention the name of the "bonus track"
  • Some IP must've added that while I wasn't looking; I can't find it in the source. It's not really important where each song appears, anyway, so I've removed it. Tezero (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The awards could probably have an "accolades" subsection.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This section is rather short. Maybe add some detail on its critical/commercial aspects in comparison to this one and/or some ways the two games are alike/different.

In addition to the above, I would suggest including some details on how well the game sold upon release. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, with the concession that I can't safely edit large sections like those of the main article from my iPod, I'll look at these when at my laptop. Regarding the sales, I looked for quite a while way back when and couldn't find anything not from the likes of VGChartz, but I can look again. Tezero (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, lemme know when you've edited accordingly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield is a significant though relatively overlooked figure in the long struggle for women's equality. Perhaps it was her unglamorous old-fashioned manner – long black skirts, schoolmistressy voice etc – that put people off, but she has a terrific record of "firsts" to her credit, culminating in her appointment as Britain's first woman cabinet minister in 1929 – not bad for an uneducated country "shopgirl" who left school at 13. As a suffragist she was an "adultist", fighting for the extension of the franchise to all women and all men, regardless of gender, class or property qualifications. Her stint as Minister of Labour (1929–31) came at a hideously difficult time, and she has been castigated within the Labour movement for her actions in office – but it is hard to see, in the circumstances, how she could realistically have acted otherwise. So here she is, after a pretty thorough PR process, ready for your judgement on her FA-worthiness. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Well done. And as for the attire, black is the new black.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support and for previous review help. I can't help feeling that Miss B's image as a black-clad killjoy is unfair; see this hilarious clip of MacDonald introducing (or trying to introduce) his 1929 cabinet. She looks rather charming, I think. See also Lansbury, glowering in the background, Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment(s) I looked at this article at peer review when it was already well written and sourced and it has improved since. Taking another look..
    • It is normal to present and link postnominals in this way. I have, however, equated postnominals as between text and infobox. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In the Lead Second MacDonald ministry is wikilinked twice, but with different text (Labour government of 1929–31 & second Labour government) - is this needed?
    • In Childhood and family, William Bondfield is credited as "co-designer of a flying machine". I presume this is the Aerial steam carriage however he is not mentioned in the wp article about it with William Samuel Henson and John Stringfellow being given credit - I do not have access to the Hamilton reference used to support this claim to be able to check.
    • I can't speak for the WP article you mention, but William Bondfield's accociation with the flying machine is mentioned in several sources, including Margaret's biography, Fran Abrams, and Hamilton who says: "He and William Stringfellow worked together on the aeroplane model actually exhibited in flight at the Great Exhibition of 1851, which anticipated some of the essential features—propellor and tubular boilers—of modern machine". Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Interesting name variation here William Stringfellow could be a corruption of William Samuel Henson & John Stringfellow.— Rod talk 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems that Hamilton got Stringfellow's first name wrong – but that's not really a matter for this article, which doesn't acyually mention Stringfellow. I don't see the need to pursue this issue further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In Campaigns and war, the sentence "Later in the war the government, concerned by Bondfield's association with peace organisations, prevented her from travelling to similar gatherings in Sweden and the United States" might benefit from an additional comma after war - but I'm no grammar expert.
    • The comma you suggest is optional; grammatically correct either way, but in my view preferably omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In National prominence the claim that she "met Lenin" appears to be uncited - and should Lenin be wikilinked?
    • Lenin is linked in the previous line. Citation for the meeting added; Bondfield gives no details of the meeting, merely mentioning that it took place. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In Minister of Labour is the claim about her "visible reluctance" supported by the two following references (110 & 111), If it is a quote rather than conjecture/opinion should it be in italics & cited?
    • The wording is my summation of the sources, rather than a quote. Bondfield was a signatory to the Blanesburgh report and was thus being required to introduce legislation that contradicted her personal judgement. Marquand summarises her grudging attitude towards the new legislation: her initial proposals provoked a storm of opposition within her own party and had to be replaced with a more liberal formula. I think my choice of wording is justified. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In Appraisal and legacy would it be worth saying who "Williamson" is (as has been done previously with Skidelsky)?
    • Philip Williamson is Bondfield's ODNB biographer. This description was inadvertently removed during an earlier prose trimming exercise. I've restored it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Ref 36 (From Note 5) Kay, J.A. gives an error "Missing or empty |url=" message from the cite web template - should this be cite web or book, journal etc?
    • Refs 66 (Hull University) and 143 (London Gazette) appear to be PDFs - I have a vague memory that we should include "format=PDF" but I'm not sure if that is a requirement.
    • I've never heard of this as a requirement and don't remember ever doing it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • There are lots of examples on Template:Cite web but as I said it was just so,mething I've been advised to do on other articles.— Rod talk 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 17:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for these comments and for your continuing interest in improving this article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support now all my quibbles have been responded to.— Rod talk 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I'll start the review proper shortly, but a few minor points about the impedimenta at the foot of the page:

References Minor peaks, rather than a proper source review: FN5 should be pp. 218–19 (not 219) FNs75 & 106 may need looking at (is the pp. meant to be there?)

I've fixed these. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Source Review

  • As lovely as it is, why is Abingdon linked in Magill's Dictionary of World Biography (and Farnham for Worley's Foundations of the British Labour Party?
  • Well, our US friends might wonder where these places are. They are not well known outside the UK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason Blythe, Marquand and Skidelsky are linked, but not some of the others? (We have an article for Wilson, A.N., for example)
  • I have now authorlinked Hamilton, Pelling and Wilson. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

More soonest - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Happy with the explanation: source review is all good. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No other comments found on the prose. Two detailed read-throughs, with a red pen poised all the way, ready to pounch on the slightest error, found nothing in the text about which I needed to comment. Nice piece of work all round, a thoroughly interesting read and proof, if it were ever needed, that our Featured content is something for which we should feel justifiably proud. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
What, not even an ellipsis to sort out? I'm astonished – but thanks for reading through, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
(I'd already covered the dots and dashes earlier!) cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

...well, none actually. This was a delight to read with nothing to pick up on other than an adjustment of a ref order (which I fixed). Nice work Brian!

Support. I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were thoroughly dealt with. The text is clearly of FA quality, and the images have been judiciously chosen. Tim riley talk 10:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for support and earlier help with the article (inc. British Library research, invaluable). Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bondfield_on_tour.jpg has an odd "conflict" tag on it - I'm not quite sure what the tagger thought the issue was, the licensing seems correct
  • The cartoon was published in 1898 – full publication details provided. On the face of it, it is clearly PD. Unless the tagger cares to clarify his/her reservations, I propose to take no action . Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just guessing (i am not fond of tagging without explanation either): The original publication was in the UK (?), ideally the image should have an additional UK copyright tag and moved to Commons (probably as Commons:template:PD-UK-unknown, when the "author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry").
  • File:BCLM-Mary_Macarthur_6b.jpg: the uploader edited the image, but was almost certainly not the original author - what is the copyright status of the original image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is one of several Macarthur-related images that the uploader, RexxS, has taken from the Black Country Living Museum (this is another). I imagine that he photographed the images in the museum, cropped them and uploaded them to Wikipedia as his own work. I'm pretty certain that copying a perhaps non-free image does not make that copy PD. The photograph in the article of Mary Macarthur was certainly taken before 1921 (she died 1.1.21) and was likely published before then, but without direct information as to the images's origin we can't be sure of its copyright status. So I am removing it from the article – in any event, its relevance to the Bondfield article is fairly marginal. Should I decide to expand the Macarthur article, I will pursue the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

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

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'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)

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)

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. Graham Colm (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. Graham Colm (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". Graham Colm (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)

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.[5]
      • 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, [6] 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,

The Boat Race 1993[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Oxford_University_Coat_Of_Arms.svg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Done, I think. Thanks for the interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I was the reviewer at GAN and thought it would end up here! It was close then, and seems to have had a tweak or two to strengthen it further since then. I've made a few copy edits: please feel free to amend or revert if you don't like them. A couple of comments:

  • "Bangert, Gillard and Behrens"; as we've given the first names of Pinsent and Gore, (and as it's before the table) we should give the full names here.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "men's eight" ... "coxless pair": are there links for these? (Yes, I have been too lazy to do a search myself!)
    Nope, just a previous link to rowing at the Barcelona games I'm afraid.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "It was noted": slightly inelegant and could be tweaked. "Noted" isn't the best word to use, and it does beg the question of who noted.
    Quite so. Attributed to the journo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor fare, considering, and a pleasure to read. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My thanks, for everything. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

All good – one final tweak made, and I'm happy to now support. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

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

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

Carl Hans Lody[edit]

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

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

  • Some passing thoughts from Bencherlite:
    • The article uses a mixture of "First World War" and "World War I" (but "Second World War" only) - best to stick to one format throughout for both wars.
      • Good point, I've amended this. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you need to wikilink London / Berlin / other major European cities (per WP:OVERLINK)?
      • I've been advised to (see below)... Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
        • @Prioryman: I think the suggestion was to say "London, England" as opposed to "London", and Cliftonian doesn't mention wikilinks. BencherliteTalk 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Bencherlite is correct. Wikilinks were not what I meant. I'm sorry for not being clearer. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
            • OK, I've addressed that. Prioryman (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I fixed a couple of dab links - you might want to check I had the right targets - but I wasn't sure which "Halle" you need (end of the first paragraph of the body of the article)
      • Thanks for that, I found the right Halle. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's all I have time for at the mo. BencherliteTalk 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • some passing thoughts from Auntieruth55:
    • in addition to the above from Bencherlite...There are a couple of red links in there, and I think, generally, that we should at least have a brief explanation or a stub for those. Not trying to make up a lot of work for you, but it would require very little, actually.
      • Good point, I'll see what I can do. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • appropriate punctuation between paragraphs and indented quotes when you have his description as a south German....
      • OK, added a colon. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • some word order examples:
      • On 8 May 1914, the director of 'N', Fritz Prieger, Fritz Prieger, then director of 'N', (consistency with previous mention of the first director)to
        • Amended as suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • travel restrictions were imposed that prevented foreigners leaving without travel documents to travel restrictions prevented foreigners from leaving Germany without proper documents (travel is repetitive, also, it's a wordy sentence). Also, in this section you mention the security features, etc., but I think that most American passports until the 1920s did not have photographs. Since you make a point of saying that there were no security features (such as those we use today), you might clarify this.
        • Amended as suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I thought, generally, that it was an excellent article. Probably you'll want to continue tweaking it, to reduce some wordiness and other readability issues such as those I've described.
    • I'll look forward to re-reading it later. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Review from Cliftonian[edit]

Support. I think this meets the standards. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Carl_Hans_Lody.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died more than 70 years ago?
  • As I've said above, it appears to be by an anonymous police photographer. "If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication." [7] Since it was first published in 1914 that criterion is satisfied. I've also added a US PD tag. Prioryman (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Lody_letter_14-09-1914.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As part of the evidence in Lody's trial in October-November 1914. Prioryman (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Right, reading through now.....queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Why is Charles A. Inglis italicised?
  • Lody replied that he was "honoured by your trust in me" - de-quote and put in third person, could leave "honoured" in quotes I guess.
  • Chief of Naval Intelligence not to send him to the UK - would they have called it that then? Not "(Great) Britain"?
  • Only five years previously, the UK did not have a dedicated counter-espionage organisation - see preceding

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Acacia pycnantha[edit]

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

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

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)

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)

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 OK (2 points, FUR?)

  • 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)

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.
  • You shouldn't set the pixel size of images without a good reason, as it overrides user settings.
  • 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?)
    • 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
  • also served as the base structure: what does "base structure" mean here?
  • Retrospective reception: ?? Is there such a thing?
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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)

Older nominations[edit]

Ontario Highway 403[edit]

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

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

Barn owl[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

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

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

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

Here are some more comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This book splits the subspecies:

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

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

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

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[8]), 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?[9] FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we have quite a few more interesting "in flight" images than the one used.[10] 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?

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.
  • Need to add rationale of those publishing the split as to why they think the split should happen.
  • Across its vast range, the barn owl has formed many subspecies, - "formed"....sounds weird in transitive here...another verb?
  • 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. I could use "estimated" instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Æthelstan A[edit]

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

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

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

Many thanks Tim. About the red links, I am not sure whether they should stay. They certainly need articles, and I was intending to work on them next, but I have changed my mind. They relate to the later tenth century, which I am less familiar with, and I think it would be better to get the earlier period (including Alfred the Great - a major project) out of the way first. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
A pity in one way – I can never remember for five consecutive minutes what "hermeneutic" means, however often I look it up, and it would be nice to have an article – but on the other hand an FAC on such a major figure as King Alfred will be more than ample compensation. Bring it on, as I believe the modern saying is. Anyway, warm applause, as above, for the article at present before us, with or without the red-links. Tim riley talk 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately hermeneutic style is a misleading name as it has nothing to do with hermeneutics, which is the theory of text interpretation (whatever that is). The elaborate and abstruse style of Latin popular in later Anglo-Saxon England went out of fashion after the Conquest, and William of Malmesbury described it as barbarous. It used to be called the Hibernian style, but scholars did not like that as it was not particularly Irish, and someone came up with the name 'hermeneutic'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That letter is not in the alphabet that most English readers know. I strongly suggest having an explanation of some sort of how to read that letter. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume this refers to "Æ". I am not sure how to deal with it. It has not been raised - so far as I know - with other articles which have Æ, but I see a couple of them such as Ælle of Sussex have the pronunciation. Does anyone know how to do this? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this is right, but I'd wait to see if an expert can confirm or amend: /ˈæθəlstæn/ Tim riley talk 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Tim. Very helpful as always. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case Æ is still a part of English, just a somewhat old-fashioned part. You needn't look too hard to find a text that uses it, e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Nergaal. I think the bulk of English-speaking readers are aware that some words are, or were, written with the Æ, and I think that an explanation of "how to read" the letter(s) would be tangential to this article, at best. I do not object to adding a pronunciation guide, although I rarely find them helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You disagree to having a footnote? The Britannica example is not that relevant since that name is actually in Latin-ish. Plus youngsters these days might not have actually know this obsolete example. Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added the pronunciation kindly supplied by Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Support. Far too many FAs are about video games, and far too few are about scholarly subjects. The article does a good job of making a technical subject readable. I wonder if the WP:LEAD section can be expanded a bit to give a clearer overview of the whole article, and I hope the nominator would put up at least a stub for the two redlinked topics in the Lead, to give readers a better idea of what is being referred to. But these quibbles do not affect my support for promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will work on these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the lead. Does it look OK now? Someone has created a stub for the Benedictine Reform and I will have a go at expanding it a bit and creating one for the hermeneutic style. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support – looks good and a pleasure to read. Only things I'd do are: link thegn - also "Latin prose revived in the tenth century" - I'd not use "revive" as an active intransitive verb like this...sounds weird to mine ears...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have linked thegn and revised "revive". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oxford College of Emory University[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
      • 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)

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 [11] 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)

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)

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?)
  • 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)

Turquoise parrot[edit]

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Image check - all OK

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

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual sound article, a few quibbles though.

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

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Generally a solid article. Some points, mostly on the prose (I don't think this article is as polished as some of your FACs):

  • "The male is predominantly green in colour and more yellowish below with a bright turquoise blue face and red shoulders on the predominantly blue wings." - This is a very clunky sentence.
sentence split now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nectar is mentioned in the lead but this does not reflect the diet as recorded in the body of the text.
an old edit - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead section could be expanded a bit.
added a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One image caption has a lower case first word.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The two are an allopatric species pair, and are the only two species in the genus to exhibit marked sexual dimorphism." - I know these terms are wikilinked but it is helpful to the average reader not to have to click through to other pages to find out what they mean.
sexual dimorphism is easy to explain, the other is tricky without adding a great wad of text - Iwas tempted to add a footnote..but then pondered whether the bluelink is doing the same thing... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The cere and orbital ring" - ditto.
changed the latter to eye-ring; I could add "The waxy strip at the base of the bill known as the cere..." - but it comes across a bit clumsy...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikilink or gloss "Aviculture"
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Description section you use such sentences as "...the female has a broad white bar visible on its underwing." I consider "its" is awkward here and would personally use "the".
hmm, I have no strong preference - "its" sounds slightly better to me but I am not at all fussed to change them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence starting "The turquoise parrot inhabits " is too long and needs splitting.
I've stared at that sentence - although long it's fairly simple and just segues into a long list. I can't see where to splice it without making it sound ungainly.
  • "Birds are present in some areas all year, though in northern Victoria are thought to move into more open areas outside the breeding season." - I think this could do with a noun or pronoun as subject for the second part of the sentence.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the image of the adult male should be on the left as I understand it is best to have animals facing into the page.
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "... though it has been classified as near threatened ..." - I would use "was".
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The population was tentatively estimated at 20,000 breeding birds in 2000, with around 90% residing in New South Wales, and is thought to be increasing." - This is a bit awkward.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The New South Wales subsection is a bit disjointed, and I thought the "pie filling" bit a little odd.
I've rejigged this bit - yes the pie-filling is odd... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you know why this bird has experienced such wide population swings?
many arid nomadic species can have wide population variations. It is a bit of a mystery and haven't seen much discussion on it other than to note it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "... roost in the foliage ..." - Perhaps "among" would be better here.
personally I could go either way, but there's another "roost in" nearby so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are several rather short sentences in the Behaviour section.
have massaged it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "It has been recorded feeding on seeds of various plant species ..." - The subject of the previous sentence was "seeds".
de-pronouned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The just-mentioned sentence is too long.
split off end as eating introduced weeds notable - otherwise shortish bit in beginning is split with semi-colon and I can't bust list easily. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You use the word "hollow" in several places. To me this means a "shallow depression". Do you mean a hole or crevice in a tree rather than a mere depression?
Yes - in fact I just stumbled over tree is essentially a wooden burrow. linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The clutch is laid on a bed to wood dust or leaves ..." - "of" rather than "to"?
not sure what happened there - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "... two to five (or rarely eight)" eggs - Are there never six or seven?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Egg size needs imperial equivalents.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Eggs are laid at an interval of two to three days each." - The "each" is redundant.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The chicks are altricial and nidicolous;" - More jargon terms unhelpful to the average reader.
now explained in the sentence immediately following Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of Breeding needs rearranging as incubation currently comes after chick rearing. Some other sentences in this section do not unite well either.
moved sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "... silvery-white brown down" - What colour is this?
oops, stray word removed....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of this section has the word "nest" at the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the Pathogens section needs a capital letter.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Baby birds may perish in very hot weather or heavy rain by being drowned in the hollows." - They probably don't drown in very hot weather!
oops...reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "A yellow form, where the yellow and red pigments are conserved alone," - What does this mean?
it means the parrot has lost the blue pigment in its plumage, leaveing it yellow and red alone. clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

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

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

Comments by Ɱ

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

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

Image review

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

Other remarks

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • FN3, 33: most refs don't include location
  • Be consistent in whether authors are presented first or last name first
  • FN8: title given doesn't match that in the link, can you verify?
  • Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case
  • FN18: why the additional quote marks in the title?
  • FN25: URL can be truncated after page number
  • FN25: are we missing part of the journal title here?
  • FN36: what is the title and author of the specific article being cited from LIFE?
  • FN37 returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I think I've now addressed all of the above to the best of my ability. Yunshui  10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. Looks like FN32 still has a location attached, and for FN36 the publisher is not the author (it's okay to omit the parameter if no author is listed). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks - both of the above now sorted. Yunshui  08:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Eric Corbett This is a very nice article, but there are just a few things I think need to be addressed before I'd feel comfortable supporting its promotion.

  • Lead
  • The image caption in the lead tells us that there's a shu-moku in the background, yet it's not until the Construction section that we're told what a shu-moku is. What about something like "... or a beam suspended on ropes, known as a shu-moku"?
  • Origin
  • "Bronze bells have been found in numerous archeological sites in Japan". The article seems generally to be using BR English spelling, so ought not this to be "archaeological"? Similarly, shouldn't "mold" be "mould"?
  • "One larger additional bell, which eventually developed into the bonshō, was used as a tuning device and a summons to listeners to attend the performance." The performance of what? A concert?
  • Sound
  • "... a difference of a single Hertz can require that the bell be recast from scratch." A difference between what and what?
  • Notable examples
  • "The bell of the Nishi-Arai Daishi Temple in Tokyo was scrapped as part of the Japanese war effort in 1943, but remained unused until the end of the war. The crew of the USS Pasadena found the bell and took it back to the USA as a war trophy, donating it to the city of Pasadena." This seems a bit muddled to me. In what sense was it unused until after the end of the war? And how could the crew of the USS Pasadena have taken it back to the USA when it had never been there in the first place?
@Eric Corbett: Immense thanks, Eric. I think this edit deals with your concerns, but do let me know if there's anything else. (And my somewhat humiliated gratitude for pulling me up on the mould/mold thing - eugh, what was I thinking!) Yunshui  08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • but can be adjusted to alter the tone of the end product: are there any examples of why this would be done, or how common it would be?
No examples, that I've found, but I've realised I wasn't really true to the source here; having re-read it, I've changed the wording to better reflect what the source actually says.
  • The casting of a large bell is a risky process: I'm not sure how appropriate the word "risky" is here—how dire are the consequences of a bell failing?
Probably not too risky nowadays (I don't imagine anyone commits seppuku over a failed bell), so I've changed the wording.
  • Often decorated with a [[Padma (attribute)|lotus]] motif.: that's an EGG—readers would assume it's pointing to the flower
Good point, changed the wording accordingly.
  • regarded as contributing to the bell's overall beauty: is this related to any of the principles of Japanese aesthetics that can be linked to?
Wabi-sabi is linked in the next sentence - since that's the specific aspect of Japanese aesthetics that the casting lines are supposed to relate to, I don't see the need to pipe it in here.
  • Finally comes the kūdi 下る or decay: but "下る" reads kudaru (and di is simply un-Japanese). I can't find any of these three words in the ja.wp article, so I don't know what the correct word would be
I clearly misheard it on the radio programme used as the source - having listened again, it's okuri 送り. Updated to the correct term.
If you're getting these terms from an audio source, then where are you getting the kanji? The more Japanese I've learned, the less confident I've become that I could simply guess the kanji, especially for specialized terms. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In this particular case, a good kanji dictionary and - I confess - a bit of educated guesswork. I'd prefer a native speaker to take a look, but I've asked in the past with no success. I'll take it out if you're unhappy with it, it just irks me to have one Japanese term without kanji when I've managed to locate translations for all the others.
Actually, I have now taken it out - after a bit more research, I'm now unsure whether it should be this kanji or not.
This would apply to the other two terms, too, though, wouldn't it? Maybe jsut ditch the kanji until you can be sure? One more thing: dao-on is almost certainly incorrect (I'm surprised I didn't notice it earlier). Searching around, it appears the kanji is pronounced both as tō-on and tō-ne, but I don't know which is correct in the context of bonshō. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
[ This] pdf puts them all in katakana, though I can't imagine why. Both that one and [ this] use atari instead of dao-on or ŧo-on, and it looks like a number of other sources do too. I don't have the time right now (I'm on my way out the door), but I'll see if I can sort it out tomorrow. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are also continuous harmonic overtones called baion 倍音 heard throughout the tolling of the bell. A single bell can produce multiple tones simultaneously, creating a complex pitch profile.: these are referring to the same thing, aren't they? The "multiple tones" are the harmonic overtones, aren't they? They way it's worded, it appears to describe two separate phenomena.
Rephrased to connect the two sentences and make it clear that there's only one phenomenom under discussion.
  • twenty miles away on a clear day: no conversion? Earlier in the article, SI measurements were given before Imperial.
Missed that when I was filling in conversion templates (probably because it's in text). Now amended.
  • and a difference of a single Hertz can require that the bell be recast from scratch: is this different from the bells "failing" as described earlier?
I think the rephrase of the earlier sentence shoudl have clarified this now.
  • to call the monks to services: as opposed to "to service"?
Linked and rephrased.
  • which could carry for miles: or "great distances", for the Imperial-impaired?
Ooh, yes; I like that much better.
  • the 108 Buddhist sins: nothing good to link to here?
Not really, but it should be "temptations" rather than sins; there's a little bit on it in the 108 article, which I've linked to.
  • another bonshō, called an okurikane: this is okurikane and not okurigane? Sources giving the pronunciation seem scarce, but the latter seems more likely. This source uses the latter. These results are not particularly helpful.
Again, misheard the radio programme (although in fairness, "ka" and "ga" are damn near interchangable in Japanese). Changes to "ka".
Well, the "interchangeability" is really only one way, but yeah, the meaning wouldn't change here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • to be placed around the world as symbols of peace. Peace bells have been placed at a number of locations around the world.: seems redundant
It is rather. Tautological statement removed.
  • which was cast in 698 CE ... which was commissioned in 732 CE: Many of those "CE"s could be dropped, especially later in the article, as we know all the Japanese dates are in the Common Era.
Good point, once the Origin section established that the earliest bells date from the sixth century CE the rest of the dates can be supposed to be CE unless otherwise stated. Removed the extraneous ones.
  • The Hōkō-ji stuff could use a better explanation—who was Hideyoshi, what was Ieyasu's relation to him? Also, the way it's worded, it sounds like Hideyoshi had the bell cast while Ieyasu was Shōgun (!!!)
To be honest, I'd prefer to leave these as links - I don't want to overburden a small section of the article with excessive detail about stuff that's explained elsewhere. I therefore haven't made changes here. (And yes, Hideyori (not Hideyoshi!) did indeed have the bell cast during the early Tokugawa shogunate, so that bit's intentional.)
Arrgh!—I hate how all these old Japanese names are so similar—I can never keep all those Ashikagas or whatever straight. I still think this lacks sufficient context, though, and simply clicking through won't quickly give a satisfactory answer. I'm thinking something along the lines of—
In 1610 Toyotomi Hideyori sponsored the reconstruction of Hōkō-ji temple after it burned down, and commissioned a large bell as part of it. The bell's inscription drew the ire of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who had become shogun after wresting power from the Toyotomi clan after the death of Hideyori's father Hideyoshi. The kanji characters in the inscription "Kokka ankō" 国家安康 ("Peace and tranquility for the nation") separated the characters for Ieyasu's given name (家康) with the character for "peace" (安). Ieyasu assumed this to imply that Hideyori believed peace would require the "dismemberment" of the Tokugawa, and used the dispute as a pretense to wage war on the Toyotomi clan, resulting in the Siege of Osaka and destruction of the Toyotomi.
This is 11 words longer than what's there now, which I don't think is overboard, and could probably be tightened somewhere if you still thought it too long. (I wouldn't fight for the change from "fall" to "destruction", but, seriously, they flattened the castle, beheaded an eight-year-old, forced Hideyori to commit seppuku, and disbanded the clan—I don't think the word's too strong). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to do a thing, best not do it by halves... I like "destruction" better too. Having seen your version above, I realise that it doesn't need to be too wordy, so I've added an extra sentence about the death of Hidelyoshi and changed a few other bits in the paragraph to make it flow better. Yunshui  07:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there not a photo out there that clearly shows that "battering ram" they ring the bell with? A video that clearly shows it would be nice, too—in the video that's in the article, you really can't see it. It looks almost as if the bell rang itself. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!
Trust me, I've looked and then some. I'm fairly confident in saying that the images and video in the article are the best that are available, at least for Wikipedia's use.
@Curly Turkey: Many thanks for such a thorough review, see this edit if you want to check exactly what I've done in response. Yunshui  09:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chandralekha (1948 film)[edit]

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

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

Conditional support from Graham Colm[edit]

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

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

Image comment

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

Considering this background, i suggest to:

  • add a date to the FUR-description parameter of the infobox image.
I don't understand. You mean to write the date of the poster? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My bad, the template doesn't even show this kind of background information. Removed that point, please ignore. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • change the drumming screenshot information on en-Wiki to contain a detailed fair-use rationale.
The same image now exists on Wikimedia Commons as this, where I think it is properly tinted and licensed. I have nominated the Wikipedia image for deletion. Any admin may delete it ASAP. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned, the whole URAA-situation and its handling is less than clear. Fair-use would probably still be is the better approach here. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As currently written, our policies and guidelines consider images to be free only if they are free in the US, regardless of their status in their country of origin. See for example WP:NUSC. Per GermanJoe we likely will need to hold a Wikipedia-wide discussion about how the changes on Commons might affect our practices here, but for the moment this image is not free in the US and can only be used under a fair-use claim here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • remove the second movie poster (in "Marketing") for now. GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed, even though I thought it satisfies PD-Japan by being published before 1956. But how are all the Godzilla posters' ([12], [13] and [14]) PD-Japan status still being accepted, while this image is not? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of images on Commons still have dubious or incomplete copyright information - checking and maintenance is done only by a few interested volunteers. We can't assume, all images are OK there and need to double-check them ourselves. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • I have not read the whole article yet. In the lead, it's mentioned that the film was filmed in Tamil and later in Hindi. Does that mean that there were two versions of the film that were shot separately? Or, was the Tamil film dubbed in hindi?
Yes, the Hindi version was shot instead of being dubbed, according to sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I read the Filming section of the article. There is nothing written about separate shooting of hindi version (unless I missed any passing mention). Who directed that version? Were the actors same? I am not convinced yet. Can you tell which sources say so?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Vasan directed both the versions. Though some sources (G. Dhananjayan's The Best of Tamil Cinema, this article by Mohan V. Raman and this article in The Tribune) state the Hindi version as being shot, a famous director told Baradwaj Rangan in Conversations with Mani Ratnam that Chandralekha was "dubbed, I think. Or maybe it was partially remade", while this Hindu article claims that it was "the first South Indian film to be dubbed into Hindi." What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see there are some details in the section titled difference between two versions. Still, some info may be needed in the filming section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No source explains in detail about the changes to the Hindi version. As far as I know, there was a slight change in cast (N. S. Krishnan and T. A. Madhuram were omitted in the Hindi version, in favour of Yashodhara Katju and H. K. Chopra). But is it good that the section stay? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it's a very difficult problem. We are not sure whether the hindi version was totally remade, or just dubbed, or in between: portions remade and portions dubbed. I think the best thing to do would be to add an explanatory note and state that sources differ in defining the extent of remake or dub. Then mention the differences between the sources, as you have explained above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: Dwaipayan, look at the "Release" section now. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the language of the film should be mentioned win the very first (or, second) sentence of the lead. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Written as how? I think the sentence should be as short as possible. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I would try to suggest something later. In any case, it is not as important an issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. My concerns above were appropriately addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support from Editor 2050[edit]

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

Comments from AB01[edit]

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

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

Comment images - all OK[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

  • "After two successive hits" sounds like a tabloid story. Would be better to say "box office hit".
Done: Written "box office hits". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "It became a huge success but was unable to recover its production costs". I don't think you can describe a film to be a success if it doesn't recover its production budget. I think you mean that it earned high revenues but didn't manage to recover its budget.
Done: Maybe it scored more than other Tamil films that time, yet failed to recover the budget. Whatever, I removed the statement "huge success". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "It opened up the theatres of the North to films made in the South and gave opportunities to film producers in South India to market their Hindi films in North India." Okay, firstly Western readers will be quite confused by what North and South India refers to. So I suggest wikilinking them. Also, in " producers in South India to market their Hindi films in North India" I think you mean South Indian films dubbed in Hindi, right?
Maybe, or even directly shot Hindi films. But the latter is of more significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Krimuk90, the only problem anyone may have in the lead is, "it opened up the theatres of the North" sounds a little idiomatic. You know any formal/literal alternative for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Very well written. No comments.
  • In the filming sub-section, is this really necessary: "Vasan became so involved in the project that he did not find a husband for his daughter Lakshmi Narayani, despite his wife's continuous nagging" Sounds very trivial to me.
Done: Removed as it is of less significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "No expense was spared for the publicity campaign." Again sounds like a tabloid. Can you reword this?
Done: Removed, as the para before already explains the publicity campaign as being very expensive. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Critical response
  • The New York Times described Rajakumari as a "buxom beauty. Were there no notable comments about the film in that review?
Unfortunately not. The year of the review is not even mentioned in the sole source I found. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(Note: The ref nos. refer to this revision)

  • When naming the authors, please follow this convention uniformly: [Last Name], [First Name]
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref No. 28, 43, 50, 69 , 131 does not include publisher information. I see that most of these refs that don't have publisher information are blogs, which aren't considered high-quality sources for a featured article. Can you find some better sources for these?
  • Ref 47 -, 61-, 81 - IBOS, 85 -, 92 - Box Office India, are incorrectly formatted.
My comments on the refs:
  • This ref is reliable as it is an article by S. Theodore Baskaran, a reputed film historian. But I don't know what name to type in the "Publisher" field.
Apparently the publisher is "Seminar Publications, New Delhi" (please double-check). I usually check the site's entry page for such information (see footer of [[15]]). GermanJoe (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: Based on that information, I have typed "Seminar Publications, New Delhi" as the publisher. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This ref is also reliable as it is by a reputed scholar Jerzy Toeplitz. But I still don't know what name to type in the "Publisher" field. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Publisher should be United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. -- KRIMUK90  03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: Written "UNESCO". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Publisher should be Senri Enthological Studies, Reitaku University. -- KRIMUK90  03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: Written as "Senri Ethnological Studies, Reitaku University". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made some other minor corrections, but overall excellent work Kailash. Happy to support on prose when the above comments have been addressed. However, I remain skeptical about the usage of blogs as high-quality references. -- KRIMUK90  11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:USERGENERATED, I think all the sources are satisfactory. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: Excellent work Kailash29792 (talk · contribs). -- KRIMUK90  03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S: I hope you fix some of the ref format inconsistencies. For e.g. Rediff ==> and GlamSham ==> GlamSham etc. You know the drill. -- KRIMUK90  03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 69 in Michigan[edit]

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

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

Endometrial cancer[edit]

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

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

  • Well, Kei, I guess I'll review this... but we all know I don't know anything about medicine (the ear bone's connected to the ... what now?)
  • Globally, as of 2012, endometrial cancers occurred in 320,000 women and caused 76,000 deaths. - "As of" would be present tense, as it is something that holds true or we expect to hold true. I'd use "in 2012" as the numbers can change dramatically from year to year.
  • What's with all the hidden refs? When at the end of a paragraph, one would expect a footnote (i.e. Abnormal menstrual periods or extremely long, heavy, or frequent episodes of bleeding in women before menopause may also be a sign of endometrial cancer.)
  • For those at the end of a paragraph (such as the one I quoted) I'd make the ref apparent. People generally assume that a ref doesn't cover paragraphs before the paragraph in which the ref is located. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symptoms, other than bleeding, do not occur commonly. - "Commonly do not occur" or "there are few in common" or... I feel this could probably be reworked
  • You really need to check for duplicate links. I've gotten two or three in the same paragraph. I'm not removing any more as there are too many.
  • by 3-4 times - by 300 to 400%, or another reworking. "By 3 to 4 times" just feels off
  • Ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer - why the extra "cancers"? Couple instances of this
  • There is a loose association because breast and ovarian cancers are often treated with tamoxifen. - the treatment causes the illness? That's what it reads like to me. What you intend (I think) is that the treatment of another kind of cancer (tamoxifen) can cause endometrial cancer, but that's not what the wording conveys to me. The connection only becomes clear in the following paragraph
  • Women with this disorder have a 5-10% lifetime risk of developing endometrial cancer. - as opposed to ...?
Done As opposed to a normal 2-3% risk, clarified.
  • is not currently significant - when, exactly, is "currently"?
  • CDKN2A are both dablinks
  • 10-20% of endometrial cancers, - I'd refactor to avoid starting sentences with numerals
  • 20% of endometrioid - again
  • 8-30% of atypical - again
  • Why does the Mani source not have vol, issue, and page numbers?
It was an e-publication ahead of print - I don't think it's been printed yet.
  • Hmm... wouldn't most e-publications still have such information? I know my own such publications have had the volume and issue easily accessible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: For some reason it doesn't. I'm confused too... Keilana|Parlez ici 17:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Article in press"... if it weren't for the publication saying it's alright to cite, I'd be wary... who's to say that there will be no major changes in the process? Anywho, it looks fine to me in this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally article in press means all changes have already been made and the only further changes will be to page numbers etc as it hasn't been published in the print edition yet and assigned those minor details. Since that comment, it has now been assigned those details, Second Quantization (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The single-sentence or single paragraphs sections a bit further south look really rough. Any way to either expand and/or merge?
If you're referring to the section on other carcinomas, I've looked for information and since there are only about 100 known cases each of both squamous cell carcinoma of the endometrium and transitional cell carcinoma, it's hard to find anything meeting MEDRS. I've found a couple promising papers but they're quite dense. More to come on this later - I've been overloaded with molecular path and evo/devo papers this week and need a day to unscramble my poor brain.
Okay. I went diving in PubMed and mined the only two relevant MEDRS-ish sources for PSCCE. I did use an article that had both case reports and a review of the literature because my options were very limited. There aren't any reviews of the past 5 years covering transitional cell carcinoma of the endometrium (it's that rare) so I'm going to go slightly outside of that in order to get something on TCCE. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks very good. There's also the few short paragraphs in #Research. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Thank you so much for all your comments! I think I've satisfied most of your concerns from this section. I'll keep plugging away this weekend. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • being highly suspicious for endometrial cancer. - Was the patient suspicious, or... what's meant here?
Done - Clarified that the finding is what's suspicious.
  • both an endometrial biopsy and a transvaginal ultrasound - so used in conjunction?
Yup. Not sure how to make this clearer beyond saying "used in conjunction".
I mean, they evolve from hyperplasia... ;) Done
  • have a good outcome - prognosis? I can't imagine a cancer left unchecked having a "good" outcome. Prognosis, at least, implies treatment.
  • The CTNNB1 (beta-catenin) mutation is most commonly mutated in the squamous subtype of endometrioid adenocarcinoma. - mutation - mutated; can we avoid the repetition
Yeah, we can. Done
  • 30% of endometrial serous carcinomas - more numerals
Not sure what the issue is here?
  • Sentences starting with numerals (or, at least, were when I reviewed)
Ah. Done.
  • pelvic and para-aortal nodes - I don't think these are linked yet
  • in the lung - or in the lungs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • is performed for tumors of histologic grade II or above. Lymphadenectomy is routinely performed for all stages of endometrial cancer in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, the lymph nodes are typically only removed with disease of stage II or greater. - redundant
I'm not sure how this is redundant, since histologic grade and disease stage are different. Am I missing something?
  • What's that? Humans only use 10% of their brain? Stet. I must have misread this sentence, or not comprehended the difference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 90% of women are treated with some form of surgery - another sentence beginning with numerals. Also, this would work much better closing the paragraph
  • In stage IV disease, where there are distant metastases, surgery can be used as part of palliative therapy. - could this be merged somewhere?
  • happen about 5-10% of the time - "happen in about 5-10% of cases" might be more professional.
  • dilation and curettage (D&C) - you've already linked this and given the abbreviation. You should just use D&C, or get rid of the abbreviation altogether and use the full name
  • Mutations in mismatch repair genes can lead to resistance against platins, meaning that chemotherapy with platins is ineffective in people with these mutations. - if this is related to Lymph disease or another condition which exacerbates the disease, we might want to be more explicit
  • shows tumor invading the cervix, - This feels rough to me, though if it's the proper terminology I'll push that concern aside
Invasion is the technical term, yeah. Not sure how to write that without compromising the scientific meaning.
  • 25% of metastatic endometrioid - again
  • Also, endometrial stromal sarcomas can be treated with hormonal agents, including tamoxifen, 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, letrozole, megestrol acetate, and medroxyprogesterone - and how well do these work?
Jury's out. I could go into more extensive detail about various studies and such if you think that wouldn't be overkill.
  • Would be nice to have at least that much, maybe with one or two discussions of studies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
K, I've expanded the bits on hormonal treatment of ESS, added some to Research about hormonal agents, and expanded the ESS section itself. Better? (It's super rare so hard to find MEDRS on it.) Keilana|Parlez ici 00:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Research is ongoing in this area. - as of?
Same as the other ones, mid-2010s. Done
  • You have a hidden note about the table being US figures... why isn't this noted in the article?
It should be. Done
  • Older age indicates a worse prognosis. - "older age" is a bit rough, I think. "There is a negative relationship between patients' ages and survival rates." would be more professional, or something similar.
@Crisco 1492: I'm not sure if that's clear enough for the lay reader, perhaps something like "Survival rates are lower for older women"? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Even better wording, I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Higher-staged cancers are more likely to recur — those that have invaded the myometrium or cervix, or that have metastasized into the lymphatic system, are particularly likely to recur. - Could we avoid "likely to recur" being in the article twice? Perhaps " Higher-staged cancers are more likely to recur, as are those that have invaded the myometrium or cervix, or that have metastasized into the lymphatic system."
  • If a cancer treated with radiation occurs, - occurs -> recurs?
Uh, yeah. Done.
  • Worldwide, approximately 320,000 women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer each year and 76,000 die, making it the sixth most common cancer in women. - date of statistics?
2014. Done
  • Too much repetition of "developed countries" in #Epidemiology
Not sure how to reduce that without making stats unclear. Any ideas?
  • Is "first-world" still politic, or are we supposed to avoid it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally prefer to avoid it. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then I don't have any ideas. "The West" is just as problematic, if not more so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, and North America have the highest rates of endometrial cancer, comprising 48% of diagnoses in 2012, whereas Africa and West Asia have the lowest rates. Asia saw 41% of the world's endometrial cancer diagnoses in 2012. - That's three continents making up 48%, compared to one continent making up 41%. How do three individually have higher rates than Asia alone? Concerning...
Not quite sure what the worry is here, but it might be helped by "together comprising 48% of diagnoses ....". Obviously Asia has by far the largest pop. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's the mix of rates (relative to population) with absolute numbers (the percent of diagnoses) that is confusing me. Is there perhaps a more elegant way to phrase this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So I agree, it's the mix of rates and absolute numbers and the confounding factor of West Asia vs all of Asia. I think it's clarified better now...? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Much better. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • most frequently during perimenopause and menopause, between the ages of 50 and 65; overall, 75% of endometrial cancer occurs after menopause. - Feels contradictory: if 75% of cancer cases occur after menopause, then during menopause it wouldn't be "most frequent"
Perimenopause and menopause together are most frequent - perimenopause includes after menopause. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but perimenopause (according to the menopause article) also includes "before menopause"... which, to me, at least, means pretty much any woman from age 35 to 65 (or however menopausal age is defined) is most frequently affected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately the source isn't more specific. Should I just remove the bit about perimenopause/menopause? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I defer to Doc James or another person better versed in medicine than I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 5% of cases occur in women younger than 40 and 10-15% occur in women under 50 years of age. - another numeral
  • is still underway. - as of?
Probably, for most/all of these: "now, 5 years ago and in 10 years time". It's a very slow process, with research before and after anything affects clinical practice. It's probably best to start the section with some blanket statement including a vague date "in the middle 2010s" maybe. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "As of the mid-2010s" would work nicely too. Much better than a whole bunch of "as ofs", and it would satisfy WP:ASOF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Research is ongoing on the use of metformin, a diabetes medication, - again, as of?
  • in the first place, - feels non-formal. Perhaps "Long-term use of metformin has not been shown to have a preventative effect against developing cancer (?or, "the development of cancer"?), but may improve overall survival."
  • Temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, is under investigation as a potential treatment. - again
per above, included in the "mid-2010s" umbrella. Done
  • <-- hormonal stuff --> - I know this is hidden text, but... "stuff"?
uh. "hormonal research". Done.
  • Hormone therapy that is effective in breast cancer - in treating, perhaps?
Yeah, done
  • The last three paragraphs are much too short
As above.
  • I'm getting error messages from some of your cites: "Endometrial Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)" and "General Information About Endometrial Cancer"" have date errors, and Lee JM and Banerjee S, use deprecated parameters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not getting error messages from either of those sources. Maybe someone came by and fixed it? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ooooh, I see what you mean. Fixed now. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Once the prose changes settle down, I'd recommend checking the order of your footnotes. I've seen some like [23][15] etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Review by Seppi333[edit]

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

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

History and culture[edit]

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

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

  • DIDDLE, AW (1949 Jan). "Endometrial carcinoma.". Western journal of surgery, obstetrics, and gynecology 57 (1): 20–2. PMID 18107274. 
  • ARNESON, AN (1950 Aug). "The use of radium in the treatment of endometrial cancer.". The Journal of the Kansas Medical Society 51 (8 Suppl.): 37A–38A. PMID 14774594. 
  • SPEERT, H (1949 Mar). "Carcinoma of the endometrium in young women.". Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics 88 (3): 332–6. PMID 18111780.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I imagine there was very little "popular discussion" until recent decades (or even now), because of the "delicate" location, and it would probably be lumped with other female repro system cancers. Like the pancreas, the endometrium is not one of the bits of internal anatomy that most people know about, or can name (a smaller group than one might think, it seems). I agree some medical history would be good. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, just today in The Guardian: "Womb cancer: the most common diagnosis you’ve never heard of". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:/@Wiki CRUK John: I'm taking an immunology exam this week (eek!) so it may take me a couple days but I'll read through these articles and see if I can come up with anything beyond "nobody talks about this". Watch this space! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:/@Wiki CRUK John: Okay. Immunology exam survived. It turns out that I don't have access to these articles either. I've looked at the Guardian article and incorporated a brief history and culture section. I think John is right - there's not much discussion because it's in the uterus and it's in a relatively obscure bit of anatomy. I can't find anything more to add to a history and culture section - I hope it's adequate. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Keilana We checked for sources and Wikipedia is a summary of what we have found. I am happy with the outcome and think that the culture section presents what identified reliable sources have to say. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

  • I'll copyedit anything straightforward and drop some notes as I go....
Other possible symptoms include: pain with urination, pain with sexual intercourse or pelvic pain - it's alotta pain in one sentence...why not "Other possible symptoms include: pain with urination or sexual intercourse, or pelvic pain"
It most commonly occurs in the decades after menopause - looks weird without a number before "decades"....
I'm not sure what number I could put there, suggestions? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, if it can't b quantified, do we lose any meaning by "It most commonly occurs in the decades after menopause"?
Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity, excessive estrogen exposure, high blood pressure and diabetes.[1] Approximately 40% of cases are related to obesity.[4] - I'd flip these, which allows some elimination of repetition - "Approximately 40% of cases are related to obesity.[4] Endometrial cancer is also associated with excessive estrogen exposure, high blood pressure and diabetes.[1] "
Immigration studies show that there is some environmental component to endometrial cancer. - looks interesting - any other comments from the article that can be gleaned on the basis for this would be good to add at this point.
Unfortunately, it's a gyne textbook and doesn't say much beyond that. Will add more if I come across anything. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Endometrial cancer nearly always develops before colon cancer, on average, 11 years before - would be better further up its para.
Endometrial cancer forms when normal cell growth in the endometrium encounters errors. - "encounters" strikes me as an odd word here..."errors arise in cell growth..."? Actually, try reading the para without the sentence as I think we can lose it and not lose meaning
Hrm, I was trying to avoid saying "goes wrong". How's "Endometrial cancer forms when there are errors in normal endometrial cell growth"? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Better, though I still think we could actually lose the sentence altogether. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Lymphadenectomy is routinely performed for all stages of endometrial cancer in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, the lymph nodes are typically only removed with disease of stage II or greater - this contrasts oddly with the sentence immediately before it. In fact, I'd put The topic of lymphadenectomy and what survival benefit it offers in stage I disease is still being debated. as the first sentence in the bit discussing who does what and probably lose the above sentence.
This came up earlier - it's histologic grade vs stage. I don't want to avoid the stage difference between US and UK. To clarify - in both countries, any cancer above stage II OR grade II gets lymphadenectomy. The only difference is that in the US, stage I (not grade I) cancers also can have lymphadenectomy. I'm not sure how to make the wording clearer. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
sigh - this happens sometimes. Will take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Laparotomy, an open-abdomen procedure, is the traditional surgical protocol; - strange way to use "protocol" - I'd say "Laparotomy (open surgery) is the traditional surgical procedure;" or somesuch.
There are several experimental therapies for endometrial cancer under research as of the 2010s, including immunologic, hormonal, and chemotherapeutic. - I think you can lose the "as of the 2010s" -as implied and hence redundant
can stop or reverse the progress of endometrial cancer in young women. - you'd want to qualify with an age limit or range other than "young".....
Not sure what "young" means beyond "pre-menopausal". The source isn't clear, unfortunately. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at the overall coverage and balance...looks good though I haven't investigated sources as yet. My cousin is a OBGYN so will ask her to have a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you so much for your review! Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by Jfdwolff[edit]

Firstly, well done on the hard work so far. Truly admirable and likely to have a real impact; the writing style is clear and accessible. I will keep my comments brief.

  • General: a number of primary sources is referenced, and I was hoping they could be replaced with secondary sources (e.g. Mariño-Enríquez et al 2008, Nicolaije et al 2013)
I think these are okay because I only reference the portions that are the "review of the literature". If that's not okay, I can work on replacing them. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The introduction has numerous references; I think they can be a bit offputting for the casual reader and I would recommend removing them.
You're the second reviewer to say that - I've hidden most of them (for the sake of translation efforts, I don't want to remove them entirely.) Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Signs and symptoms: in the second paragraph, the exact meaning of "these symptoms" is not quite clear. Does it refer to pyometra or to abdominal pain and cramping, and does it specifically indicate endometrial cancer or other cancers as well?
  • Risk factors: many readers may not understand what an "immigration study" is, and a short explanation of its relevance would be beneficial.
  • Risk factors#Genetics: I am unsure what is meant by "loose association" - is there an apparent link between BRCA1/2 and endometrial cancer that can be attributed to the use of tamoxifen? Clarification may be needed.
  • Risk factors#Protective factors: is there any particular explanation why multiparity reduces the risk? Currently the context alludes to the possibility that it might be progestin-related.
  • Pathophysiology: the text refers to "Type 1" and "Type 2" cancers, but they are only defined further down in the article (in Diagnosis#classification)
  • Management#Surgery: the exact purpose of mastectomy in type 2 tumors is unclear ("prophylaxis" is vague)
  • Management#Add-on therapy#Radiotherapy: some short explanations of concepts like EBRT and brachytherapy would be valuable
  • Management#Targeted therapy: if this is not in widespread use it might be better to move this to "Research"
  • References: generally good sourcing. Some of the journals are linked to a redlink - is there a reason for this or might it be possible to remove them?

I am leaning strongly towards support, so please let me know when the above has been addressed! Good luck. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not My Life[edit]

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

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

Comment from EddieHugh[edit]

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

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

Support from 1ST7[edit]

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

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

Support from Cliftonian[edit]

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

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

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

Comments from Iztwoz[edit]

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

Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

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

Request for opinion from expert[edit]

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

I don't think this is either necessary or desirable: there are 24 citations to the Rhodes work out of a total of 57 citations. This proportion of references to a principal source seems to me well within the bounds of normal practice. For some subjects there may be only one or two main works of reference to go to. One casts one's net as widely as possible, and it looks to me (as a non-expert on the subject) that the net has duly been so cast. That is not to say of course that the comments of Ms Rhodes would be unwelcome: far from it, but as an individual contributor like any other, and emphatically not as some sort of censor or expert witness with ex cathedra authority. – Tim riley talk 11:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tim riley that Rhodes' comments (if she chooses to comment) should not be considered more valid than the published sources, including her own; Wikipedia bases the reliability its information on published sources, as opposed to projects like Citizendium that base their reliability on expert oversight. I have not heard of it being a practice on Wikipedia to contact authors of sources to verify the accuracy of what they wrote, or the accuracy of our interpretation of what they wrote. Nonetheless, everyone is welcome to contribute to FAC discussions, so if you choose to contact Rhodes and she is interested in participating in the discussion, I would be glad to engage with her comments. Neelix (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wrote to Rhodes. Her comments or opinions are not more valuable than anyone else's as all contributors are equal here, but if anyone could be said to be an expert on this topic than she would be one and I think it would not harm anything to ask for her opinion. She may or may not comment; who knows. Experts rarely do, but for example in medicine where I usually am, when we get an article to good article or featured article review we try to find an expert from outside Wikipedia to give a review, or in the worst case to at least decline an invitation to review. It is not that external review is necessary, but just that it is desirable to get review from anyone knowledgeable on a topic and in this case Rhodes seems like an ideal candidate to ask. If she were a Wikipedian it would be really strange to not ping her on her talk page about this, so it seemed prudent to me to ask her to review it in this case.
Please do not delay the rest of the featured article review; if this person comments then they can do it on their own time. I just invited them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello all - Nancy Keefe Rhodes here. I completely agree that you don't need me to sign off on this or do your fact-checking for you or approve of it. I do appreciate the courtesy of Lane's invitation to comment generally. Here are some observations which I make freely & with the understanding that you don't have to act on any of them:

1. You list the article as being written in "American English," but this seems to refer mainly to spelling. British/Commonwealth punctuation, however, remains throughout. I see there has been a careful decision for this article to use American English since it's about an American film, & I like that you attended to some rationale for that. But in the US, we put the period or the comma inside the quotation marks. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that this was a dialectical difference. I have moved all of the relevant commas inside the corresponding quotation marks except three; the first two cases are titles and the third is a single-word quotations. I believe that the comma remains outside the quotation marks in these cases even in American English, but please correct me if I am wrong on this point. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the punctuation still remains inside the quotation marks in those instances too. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Nancy Keefe Rhodes Wikipedia has codified in its own manual of style at WP:MOSLQ a rule to use "logical quotations". Neelix is following this rule, which is contrary to traditional usage in any system. It is influenced by computer coding and says never to put anything in quotation marks that does not come from the original source. I know it seems odd but this system is being pushed to all younger people in tech fields. So Neelix, Nancy is right that this seems wrong to people over age 28, and Nancy, Neelix is following Wikipedia's manual of style. There are literally a thousand pages of arguments in Wikipedia style archives about this and consensus is to do it Neelix's way. I suggest dropping this issue or at least just referring it to the Guild of Copy Editors at the end of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping it - we're surely not going to solve this issue for all time. Vast numbers of essays appear every fall, as English teachers & college professors contract a bad case of impending doom. I see that Wiki is widely misunderstood in the US as a chief culprit in degrading American students' grammar. I too have engaged in this & I won't in the future because I see that your process is very intentional & even where we disagree you do have rationales. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 2. Last line of the first graph - "denialism" is not a word I have encountered anywhere before & to me it's actually not specific, descriptive or helpful in this sentence. It is like the phrase "cutaneous condition" further down (referencing the skin diseases that the begging boys get from eating garbage) - why not just say "skin disease," which is the phrase that Bilheimer's film uses? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the relevant sentences to avoid the obscure words "denialism" and "cutaneous". Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, great! Thanks. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

3. Second graph, in which there's a discussion of first version at the first public screening & a supposed "final cut" of the CNN broadcast. This is inaccurate. In fact there have been a number of re-edits since then, as Bilheimer has tinkered with the film several times to update it. There have been re-edits too since the first DVD release. I know this from having long-term correspondence with him & with his wife/producer Heidi, & because I've seen several versions of it (on a screener he sent me, in two separate public screenings here in the city where I live). The actual filming may have amounted to four years, but overall - with post-production & delays for fund-raising & additional shooting - "making the film" took closer to ten. I understand that this becomes confusing & space-consuming, but you might consider saying something a little beyond a first & final cut, something along the lines of "there have been several versions of the film due to updating & changing conditions." Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know of any published sources that contain this information? Information should not be included on Wikipedia articles unless a published source can be cited. I have removed the phrase "final cut" from the article so as to not make the claim that there is such a thing. Please let me know if you feel that this has solved the problem. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that solves the problem. To say that he has updated & re-cut the film a number of times is better than saying there are two versions. This is usually true in any film's life, but it's been a little more visible with this one because he has responded to conditions in the world & not just artistic decisions. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

4. More specifically re: that graph, the CNN & subsequent versions did remove direct reference to Suzanne Mubarak but NOT all references to the girls schools project that she sponsored while her husband remained in power in Egypt. I cover this in some detail in my piece because Bilheimer himself was conflicted about doing this. He felt that the regime change required deleting direct reference to her, but he felt also that she was sincere about this project & indeed that the schools themselves had largely been protected even after regime change because those communities knew the value of this project. So there IS footage in subsequent versions of the film of the schools & some of the students. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article states that much of the Egyptian mixed-sex school content was removed from the film, rather than saying that all of it was removed. What change would you like to see in this portion of the article? Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I would state that material directly referencing Suzanne Mubarak was removed after the fall of the Mubarak regime so as to avoid having the coverage of the schools - which have by & large survived & still operate - appear dated. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added the information that most of the schools continue to exist, although I don't believe that your article states that it was specifically the references to Suzanne Mubarak that were removed, so I can't make that claim in the article. Please correct me if you did include this information in your article. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

5. Third graph - the first of a couple places where you assert that Bilheimer says most trafficking victims are children. I think this is not so, at least in terms of what he says. The UN may say most are kids (& it looks like that's your reference) but Bilheimer pretty much always links "most" with "women & children." This raises a difficulty for me with the piece overall - that often there seems to be little distinction between what actually happens on-screen within the film he made & other supporting material you cite about the topic at hand. I would generally like to see more such distinctions, even brief linking phrases to provide clarity such as, "although Bilheimer says X, UN material on this instead suggests Y." Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The UNAFF source states that "Not My Life zeroes in on the fact that the vast majority of trafficking and slavery victims are indeed children"; the source claims that the film is making this statement rather than UNAFF. I don't think that it would be accurate to ascribe the statement to the UN, and there would be no reason to include the statement in the article if it were only a statement by the UN and not a statement made in (or about) the film. Are we interpreting the UNAFF source differently? Where else do you see similar issues in the article? Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think the UNAFF source mistakes what he said, or makes a mistake in emphasis. That's my hunch, without tracking the whole thing down. Bilheimer's habit is to reference "women & children" as major victims. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know if you would like to pursue this or similar issues further. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

6. Under Themes, in the last two sentences of one graph you say that I expressed surprise that despite Bilheimer's background of social justice work with churches he doesn't proselytize. This is a tad misleading. First, I am not surprised that he doesn't, though I did indeed note that he doesn't. I'm not surprised because I have watched all of his films & he never proselytizes, so I would instead be surprised if he took that up suddenly with this film. I think he has consistently been careful not to & to allow the material to speak for itself in ways that are surely spiritual (if you want to see that) but which refrain from religious promotion. Since so many people doing anti-trafficking work are from faith communities, this takes work. Second, it might not be amiss to expand the quick summary that he has a social justice background in churches to a little more about - his first film (Cry of Reason) arose, for example, from the role his father played in dismantling South African apartheid through the intervention of the World Council of Churches (a fact he never mentions in that film at all, except in his one or two line dedication in the final credits). He & I talked at great length about this & about his conviction that he not use his special access to Beyers Naude & Desmond Tutu & lots of other people - people his father brought home when Bileheimer was still a boy - to seek any credit for his father in making the film. But others who are now starting to notice that Robert has made a body of work with his films might be interested in those roots. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that you were surprised; I agree that the source does not warrant this assertion. If you know of published sources that discuss Bilheimer's religious/spiritual background/practices, I would be glad to add a brief summary in a footnote at that juncture. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. My published Stone Canoe article discusses these matters. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added the footnote. Please let me know if it is to your liking. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

7. Live footage - okay, this section is a problem. You do frame the film as beginning & ending with the fishing boy Etsy but in between, the order of what happens in the film is really scrambled. I can tell from reading this that whoever wrote it read a lot ABOUT this film, but frankly I cannot tell that you actually watched it from start to finish. I don't mean to be harsh here, but because it's a documentary doesn't mean that the sequence of scenes doesn't matter. It matters very much & I can tell you that Robert spent long months & sweat blood getting things in the right, balanced order. I teach in a university film studies program & every year I tell my students, "Please understand you must watch the film itself. Do not rely on Wikipedia summaries because they are often inaccurate & incomplete. I will know if that is what you did instead of actually watch the film." The structure of a documentary is absolutely as important as the structure of a feature fiction film, & this article does not treat the film's structure as if it matters. You do have lots of facts about trafficking included, but not a clear account of the film's content. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have watched this film from beginning to end, and I purposely did not structure this article chronologically because doing so makes it too difficult to communicate the relevant encyclopedic information about the film's content. Because this article is about a documentary film (as opposed to an article about a dramatic film, which would contain a "Plot" section ordered chronologically), I organized the encyclopedic information about the film's content by subject, dividing it into two sections: "Live footage" and "Interviews". I think that it would be unnecessarily (and very) confusing to readers for these two sections to be combined and presented chronologically, or for either of them to be reordered chronologically. The purpose of this section is not to give the plot of the film but to succinctly explain what kinds of live footage and interviews are included, and this purpose would be defeated if the sentences were split apart and reordered to convey the order of the film's scenes. As is common with documentary films, the scenes in Not My Life jump around from interview to interview and back again many times over, and the same is true of the live footage. These sections would be disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article if they were restructured in this way. There are too many individual scenes of differing forms all mingled together to mention them all in sequence. If there is consensus that the chronology of the film is important, I could add a chronological "Plot" section in addition to the "Live footage" and "Interviews" sections as a kind of overview, but I would recommend against doing so as such is not typical of articles about documentary films. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this would be a rationale for the way you have structured this section & it's better to learn this than go around feeling you didn't actually watch it. But my assertion is that this is not the best way to write about film. Documentary filmmakers struggle mightily with the mistaken & widespread notion that the most important thing about their films is the list of facts one can pull out of them & that HOW they put those facts together is not so important. It is a huge issue to documentary filmmakers. I teach film. I write about film. I am around filmmakers & have talked with many of them about this issue in the past decade. What you have done is essentially to dismantle the film & lay out all its parts, much like one might if you took apart your car's engine & laid out all its parts on a white sheet neatly. This will tell us about what parts there are & how many & what they look like individually, but it will not help us understand how the engine works or allow us to see it in action. As you note elsewhere, Bilheimer goes light on the statistics - he prefers the occasional telling statistic to a constant deluge of numbers & he places those statistics very strategically throughout his narrative. Documentary filmmaking has had something of a crisis in this past decade as many filmmakers have decided that simply arguing from the facts & flooding the screen with numbers is a bankrupt method. Seattle filmmaker Sandy Cioffi said to me with regard to her documentary, "Sweet Crude," about US oil companies in the Niger Delta, "The World Bank already knows these numbers, Nancy. What number can I put on the screen that will stop the killing & pollution? It is stories that move people." So if you simply throw out the narrative, you miss the power of the film & you also miss his intention in how he makes the film. It is missing a very fundamental point about why he made a movie instead of simply publishing research. You've clearly been on his website & perhaps you recall that he writes about what he sees as the power of film to reach people. You can actually honor that in how you describe the film's narrative. Overall that may be more important than lists. How will people actually USE this piece on Wiki? Will this provide footnotes for papers or will it move people to find the film & watch it? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You know how to win me over, Nancy. Yes, I certainly want the article to be written in such a way that people will be likely to find and watch the film. Might you be able and willing to help me with this? Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of the film and neither does my local library; I moved to a different province this year and I watched the film last year by convincing my old public library to buy it. Would you be willing to tell me the order of the scenes? Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Neelix, as if on cue, I've gotten an email from World Wide Documentaries that a new revised edition of "Not My Life" is now available on DVD. So at this point neither one of us knows the final order of scenes! I will email that notice to you so you have it as documentation. I've read the article as it now stands on the link & I think it's quite quite good. You've addressed a number of my concerns very well & have elaborated the context enough so that, even though there is not actually a description of the narrative itself, it seems less a problem, & it makes sense to me to simply say that WWD has just announced a new cut. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for letting me know about this! I have requested a copy of the new cut from Worldwide Documentaries, and have added a new paragraph at the end of the "Release" section of the article to explain the nature of the 2014 editing of the film. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

8. Here is one example of fuzzy content: Efrain Ortiz is NOT shown "getting sentenced." He's shown getting arrested & when that sequence concludes, there's a black screen with text reporting his sentence, but never actual footage of the courtroom. This is the kind of confusion that suggests someone read about the film but didn't watch it. However, later on there's a more detailed discussion of Efrain Ortiz & the rescuers, which to me almost seems written by someone else....? There are other examples of this. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the editors of this article are not correct; it might be more fruitful to stick to a discussion of article content. I have reworded the statement about Ortiz's sentencing according to your recommendation. I would be grateful if you would indicate the other examples to which you allude. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I regret that you have perhaps taken offense. Above you explained that you had indeed watched the film & why you chose a particular approach to describing what happens in the film. Certainly a legitimate approach although one I disagree with. But in this example - what's shown regarding Efrain Ortiz - it's simply that the writing isn't as clear as it might be & thereby misleads. One wants to avoid ever giving the impression that one hasn't watched the whole film. These little details that slip contribute to that. They are like editing mistakes in a movie - you notice on the screen that the prop people left that object on the set that isn't part of the film's "world" & stick out. You don't need me to give you a whole list - just go through & look for them & you'll see them. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am now far more familiar with the sources than with the film itself. I wrote the article soon after watching the film, but I don't have access to the film anymore, and I don't now remember enough of the film's intricacies to be able to identify parts the published reviewers might have gotten wrong. As with #7, I'm at your mercy on this one. I'm unlikely to be able to get my hands on a copy of the film before this featured article candidacy expires, so I'm only going to be able to fix any inaccuracies you point out to me. I hope I'm not coming across as being difficult; I greatly appreciate your feedback and I want to address your concerns to the greatest extent that I'm able. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
See my response to #7. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

9. Angie & the Stormy Nights section about the US Midwest & truck stops. One of your reviewers asks a bunch of questions about when the FBI sting occurred, how old the girls were, how long ago, etc. All good questions. Again, careful watching of the actual film (plus through reading of my admittedly long-winded article) will answer them. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of this content was removed from the article as the section was disproportionately focused on Angie. Please let me know if there is any specific information about her that you feel should be included in the article. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's your call if you wish not to focus so much on her, but abbreviating your account of her led your own reviewers to ask about what was missing. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

10. Toward the end there's a section where you write that Desmond Tutu was interviewed because Bilheimer felt that audiences might need "pastoral counseling" & the cite is another article about the film. I have not looked that cite up & perhaps this is a paraphrase of someone else's conclusion, but I have to say it's bizarre & providing "pastoral counseling" for movie audiences via a cameo of Bishop Tutu would be nothing that Robert Bilheimer would be up to. It's so out in left field & so inconsistent with how he works & thinks, that I am moved to ask how did the writer(s) arrive at such an idea? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement is taken from an interview with Bilheimer himself. Please feel free to listen to the interview and respond back if you feel that the article is not in line with the source. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's a direct quote, that's one thing. If it's a paraphrase of what an interviewer thought Bilheimer meant, then it's just wacky. Just my observation. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

11. Finally, I have passed over the paraphrase of my own article's discussion of the notion of "slavery" as something historical, over-with, & different from modern "human trafficking." It's a bit fuzzy as it appears in this article & could be improved. What I say is that holding onto the idea of "slavery" as in the past allows us not act urgently on human trafficking, which is different only in its form - in how this commerce is conducted now. There are actually more enslaved people now than ever before - 27-29 million so I am interested in why we resist this comparison. But something else happens if we see "slavery" as only in the past - we can use the visual symbols of slavery in exoticized ways to titillate. So we have nearly-naked Christine Ricci in chains, for example. I'm not saying that in this film she IS a slave - only that the filmmaker is drawing on the power & resonance of certain visual tropes to add punch to his film, bondage that takes advantage of both racial & sexual stereotypes. If it's "over," then the category "slavery" can be used for other things - like squatting in an empty house.

Something interesting that HAS started to happen, however - again, I cover this though you'd have to read the whole thing & just from the pages you cite I can see you skipped vast expanses because they probably seemed not immediately important - is that people ARE beginning to equate modern trafficking with slavery. I discuss how a number of anti-trafficking groups now use that language on their websites, how Congressional hearings have included movie stars like Will & Jada Pinkett Smith testifying while wearing tee-shirts that say "End slavery," Hillary Clinton's choice to announce annual international trafficking stats on the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation & explicitly pointing out the date, etc., etc. In my view, the growing recognition that trafficking = slavery is part of how come the quickening momentum to fight trafficking. And we can see this shift begin to happen during this years that Bilheimer was making & then releasing this film. I think it is part of the difference that his film makes. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way in particular that you feel the Wikipedia article should be changed to better reflect your article? I am unclear about what the issue is here that needs addressing. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the two paragraphs above summarize what I cover & discuss in much more detail in my article. Do you think that the sentence or two in the Wiki piece reflects that content & analysis? Upon reading the two graphs above (#11), did that clarify for you what I was trying to discuss & why it's important? A book I reference in my own piece is Kwame Anthony Appiah's "The Structure of Moral Revolutions," in which he discusses what broke the log-jam in certain pivotal social changes (the slave trade in UK, women's foot binding in China, & some others). Appiah says that it's actually NOT the amount of information we have - people in the UK already had all the numbers about the harm the transatlantic slave trade caused - that triggers change. It is deeper - how we see ourselves, in how we define the issue taht's a problem, whether we are the kind of people who do certain things with impunity. There is a shift that must occur before we will act that is not at all about the list of facts. What I noticed about Bilheimer's film is that he starts with a simple declaration that most people - when the film first screened - did not agree with. But over the last several years, this has begun to shift. Bilheimer has been a big part of re-defining what we think trafficking IS. And now that we know what it is, we will stop it. You know that Einstein quote, "The problems that we have to solve cannot be solved at the same level of thinking from which they were created"? It is not the whole inventory of facts that will change this - it's how we think about it. So that is why this framing of his film is important.Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have reworded and added some information to this section in an attempt to better reflect the position you present in your article. Please let me know what you think of the changes. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Very nicely done! Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

12. If this sounds like one long harangue, it's really not. There are some places the piece can be clarified considerably. I would worry actually less about the abundance of footnotes about the facts in the film & more about getting a clear & coherent account of the film itself. Distinguish more clearly between what happens on screen & secondary sources instead of lumping them all together. These are small flaws. Overall I'm really pleased that you're going to run something about "Not My Life." And I appreciate having a chance to comment. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you commenting! I hope you will come back to respond to my responses. On Wikipedia, we don't aim to present truth, but rather all of the published opinions on a subject proportionally. That's why this article is much more focused on being true to the sources indicated in our footnotes rather than true to our own interpretations of the film. In this way, editing Wikipedia is very different from writing student papers or scholarly journal articles. Again, I would be grateful for any further comments you have about this article. I hope we will be able to reach mutually satisfactory conclusions on all twelve of your points above. Thank you for being so thorough! Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, Neelix. But isn't the primary source of the article the film itself? By its nature film is a visual narrative form, which Bilheimer chose as the best medium for his statement. He didn't choose a legal brief in a lawsuit in the Hague, or a newspaper expose, or a UN position paper. He made a movie. Anyway, I've enjoyed this exchange & I appreciate having been able to have it. We actually don't have to agree on every single thing. For me there's a lot of freedom in knowing that I don't have to get you to do anything - I accept the terms that you don't need my approval & you guys will make your decisions, & I get to make comments & I won't be sore about the outcome. Many thanks! Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take my comments prior to your commenting here to mean that I don't want your help in improving this article. I have greatly appreciated your willingness to review and continue discussing this article with us. I hope that you will consider helping me specifically with points 7 and 8 above; watching the film again anytime soon is beyond my means, but I do want the article to be of the highest possible quality. Thank you again for your help. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a fine piece. This has been hugely valuable for me too. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Your insights have proved invaluable; I would not, for example, have known about the new 2014 cut of the film otherwise. If you have any remaining concerns regarding the article, I would be glad to hear about them. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only two remaining issues that have not been addressed are 1) the probable difference between the chronology of the "Live footage" section with the new 2014 version of the film, and 2) the clear distinction in that section between the information that is provided in the 2014 cut of the film and information that has been provided outside the film about the film's contents. I will not be able to address either of these issues until I receive a copy of the 2014 cut of the film, which I have requested from Worldwide Documentaries. I do not personally believe that either of these issues is significant enough to prevent the article from being featured, but I will understand if the community disagrees. I will attempt to retrieve a copy of the new version of the film as soon as possible, but I do not know how long it will take. Neelix (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale[edit]

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

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

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

Xx (album)[edit]

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

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

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

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

  • "bookmakers and critics considered the xx as favorites" - I can tell what this means, but the wording is a little unclear as to whether they just liked the xx or predicted they would be award-winners. Maybe add "possible" before "favorites" or swap "considered" for "predicted"?
This kind of wording has been used in other print sources ([16]), and the context is established by the preceding sentence and the bit that follows, "...and predicted they would win over..." Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also might want to link "bookmaker". I had to look it up.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The first two paragraphs of Reception are very unbalanced - is there any way they could be evened out a bit?
Well that's sort of the point, to be neutral in form. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). To be honest, if I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal, but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. Is there a way to organize them any way other than positive vs. negative? It's okay if the answer's genuinely no, but I'm just not big on the layout as of now. Tezero (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ook, but I don't think there is honestly. IMO, this is the best way for the content in that section. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "said was "quit a feat"" - mistake in original? If not, use [sic].
  • "English band Florence and the Machine" - "fellow English band", maybe? (I actually thought they were American.)
Corrected "quite" misspelling and added "fellow". Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Unfortunately, in accordance with the exposure of widespread close-paraphrasing issues below (I generally don't check the sources while reviewing FACs; I leave that to the source reviewers), I have to switch my vote to an oppose as well until these things are fixed. Would these critics actually care about their words being used so transparently? I doubt it, but rules are rules. Tezero (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, the few instances of close-paraphrasing involve critics' voices and are always attributed in-text per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism → "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Rationalobserver has inflated a few instances, even though they are appropriate, despite his personal disagreement with the guideline I've cited, which he has in turn revised to give substance to his objection here. Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my vote back to a tentative support, providing the article does not borrow wholesale from the sources any more than has been shown. Rationalobserver's positions, based on a discussion Dan56 has shown me, do not appear to be those of Wikipedia at large. I fully admit that I was merely deferring to his position on copyvios, because I'm not well-versed with that stuff (none of my FACs have ever been opposed on those grounds, so I haven't had to be). Looking at it now, these instances mostly seem frivolous to describe as copyright infringement, since they consist mostly of short phrases that are often reworked considerably in structure and word choice. Rationalobserver seems more to be trying to advance an agenda, though perhaps not in bad faith. Tezero (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from MusikAnimal[edit]

Seems to reasonably conform to MOS:ALBUM. I have not completely read through the article (yet), but here are some issues I've noticed thus far. — MusikAnimal talk 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Recording and production, last paragraph, "I wanted it to sound like..." Even though the citation at the end of the paragraph verifies this, I'd still duplicate the inline citation at the end of the quote. You have to be very strict about verifiability when it comes to quotations.
In a past FAC, where I followed each direct quotation with a citation, this was brought up by a reviewer as an example of citation overkill (WP:FAC/Marquee Moon#Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX). Is this something open to interpretation by each reviewer? "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (WP:CITEOVERKILL) Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dan56: It is absolutely open to interpretation. WP:CITEKILL is merely an essay, not even a guideline. WP:MINREF reflects policy. I completely disagree that having a citation next to a direct quotation from a living person could be considered overkill, you're merely staying within the safe zone of WP:BLP and WP:V policy by doing so. As a reader, if I see a direct quotation, perhaps contentious, I shouldn't have to look for the citation. Having two or more citations whose sources support the same quote could of course be considered overkill. I leave it up to you on whether to duplicate the citation, but certainly don't mistake essays something concrete. — MusikAnimal talk 19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion, last sentence, ""putting our music on everything, just to put it to anything just for the sake of money"." Per MOS:LQ the period should go before closing double-quotes, generally matching the placement in the direct quote. Obviously a very minor detail.
MOS:LQ mentions how with a "[sentence] fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside." So that quote is not a full sentence. If I'm mistaken though, I'll fix it. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Reference #29 "Rodgers 2010" does not appear to link anywhere. There's also visible cite error in the References section, "A list-defined reference with group name "lower-alpha" is not used in the content".
That's my mistake; there shouldn't be a "d" in "Rogers" lol. I'm not seeing anything about the visible cite error though. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I noticed in the main The xx article "the" in artist's name is always capitalized ("The xx" not "the xx"), while Coexist (album) and others seem to be inconsistent. Not a huge issue, and perhaps intentionally used interchangeably, but I thought I'd point it out.
@MusikAnimal:, I think most of the sources I used in this article don't have "the" capitalized, so I followed that. As long as it's consistent in this article, it's fine. Although looking at FAs like The Beatles, "the" shouldn't be capitalized in The xx, so I've corrected it there. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I've cited those direct quotes, @MusikAnimal:. Are there any other (possible) issues to resolve? Dan56 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury[edit]

Object to promotion to FA status, based on the following concerns:

  • Criterion 1a (prose). I think the writing needs to be improved for clarity, jargon, and cohesive grammar. It should be copy-edited.
  • In particular, the Music and lyrics section has some phrasing that indicates a possible misunderstanding of musical terminology, which is something I see a lot in song and album articles. For example, "The songs' melodies are spaced out with rests." Well, that's a weird and redundant statement, as "spaces" in music are rests, plus it's not in the cited source. Another example, "its loudest recording"; I'm unclear what this means? Do you know what loudness means in terms of music recording? It's sourced to Rizov 2010 which isn't in your list of sources.
@Spike Wilbury:, "Negative space" is cited (Cole 2009) and is interchangeable with "rest" (Ma_(negative_space)#WordJohn H. Haig, The New Nelson Japanese-English Character Dictionary, Tuttle, 1997, p. 1132). Perhaps instead of "spaced out", it would be less redundant if I wrote "...are separated by rests" instead? Rizov is in the list of sources, the last name had just been misspelt ([17]). If you're complaint above was about jargon (something a particular group would understand or use), then I think readers would understand "loudest" in the way most people understand it, not "in terms of music recording". Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I definitely understand what you're trying to say, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense from a musical terminology standpoint. Their use of negative space is great to talk about, but saying melodies are spaced out with rests just sounds like you're misunderstanding the musical aspects of the album. Thanks for correcting the Rizov citation. I make prodigious use of CTRL-F rather than visually scanning. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I really get an awkward feel from reading the entirety of the article. I feel like you're using strange techniques to paraphrase what you're reading in the sources and not taking the time to really absorb and understand what you're reading to convey it to the reader in a cohesive way.
Idk how to respond to that, it sounds like an open-ended objection. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a systemic problem with the writing in the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean beyond the objections regarding the music terminology (mis)use in #Music and lyrics? If so, where specifically? Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said, it pervades the writing. May I ask what strategy you typically employ when you're paraphrasing sources? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
And as I asked, where? I paraphrased the same way as in my previous FAs, so I'd appreciate if you told me what's giving you this impression. If you're going to base your objection on this, then it's only fair to elaborate on it. Otherwise, I don't feel these are "actionable objections" that I can resolve. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you answer my question? I'm not unfamiliar with composition, technical writing, and scholarly research. Your writing reads as if you have a source open in one window and are writing statements into the article while looking at it, trying to change around words and phrases so you're not plagiarizing. Would this be accurate? The writing being of less-than-ideal quality is most certainly an actionable objection; you can act on it by having someone copy-edit the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I read a source and paraphrased it. Tezero didn't share your opinion of the quality of writing, although he was still kind enough to review and point things out more thoroughly so I could resolve and discuss specific things in the article. I wont ask someone to copy edit an article because it doesn't suit one reviewer's intuition and I don't feel it's fair to oppose simply because the prose isn't to your liking. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel this is becoming too heated; why not put this up at WP:GOCE/REQ? The article Sleeping Dogs (video game) received a couple of prose-related oppose votes, so the primary nominator did this with a message that the request was urgent as it belonged to a current FAC, and someone picked it up right away and is now hammering away. It's also worth noting that I don't care about everything being worded completely perfectly for FAs as long as it's comphrehensible, unambiguous, and reasonably well-flowing, criteria I feel this article fulfills. Even then, though, it's possible for me to miss things, as with any reviewer on any criterion. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
That FAC involved reviewers bringing up numerous issues/examples that could be resolved. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and this one doesn't, making it an especially good choice because the objectors have provided no concrete input themselves on what needs to change. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
After seeing they've supported this FAC for an article with noticeably worse prose (as I detailed below), I'm beginning to discount their vague complaint about the prose here. Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Criterion 2 (style). The linking is strange. You have Jamie Smith linked in the lead and again in the body, but the rest of the band members are not linked in the lead or even when they are mentioned in the Background section.
Perhaps because he's the only member with an article? Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Criterion 2a (lead). I feel that you have chosen some strange details to include in the lead that don't seem all that important. Smith using his laptop, or reverb being employed in the guitar parts. Reverb is employed on pretty much every recording ever made, so it's hardly worth mentioning in the lead.--Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Based on my research of this album specifically, many of the sources take note of the reverb in their music, as McDonald--the audio engineer--mentioned ([18]) Due weight is based on the sources, not what I personally felt is important, although I don't see how it's unimportant when Smith--the producer--basically did everything on his laptop, which is also noted in many of the sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, you should explain why the use of reverb is notable. It's like saying sound effects were used in a film without explaining what in particular was notable about their use. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think "reverb in her lead guitar parts" is more specific than "sound effects used in a film" and not as obvious as you're making it out to be. And since that sentence mentions both Qureshi and Croft as the guitarists, it serves another function--distinguishing her as the lead guitarist along with her sound incorporating reverb. Mentioning it as an aside with the way it's worded should suffice without going off-topic and into any further detail about it, which is mentioned twice in the body where it goes into further detail. Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. "Employed reverb in her lead guitar parts" without any other detail as to why that's notable enough to be mentioned in the lead sounds really banal to anyone who knows anything about musicianship. Again, I feel that you have read sources and paraphrased them to construct this article without really understanding what they're saying as a cohesive set of information. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression your not basing this objection on anything concrete and maybe instead your own criteria based on personal knowledge of "musicianship" or music. So far your objections have only been about musicianship/terminology-specific info in Music and lyrics and the lead. Per MOS:INTRO, "greater detail is saved for the body", and things should be placed in "a context familiar to a normal reader." I don't agree that mentioning it as an aside following a more elaborate description of "Its melancholic songs..." is banal for the common reader. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, is that a problem? I would think you would want feedback from someone familiar with the subject matter you're writing about. If you wrote a physics article would you object to a physicist coming in and giving you some opinions about the writing? You're exceptionally standoffish and I'm frankly not sure why you are putting something up for review when you're not actually interested in criticism. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It kind of is. Sentences with technical terms about music like "rests", "reverb", and "loudness" are miniscule bits in a much larger article, which I don't feel you've reviewed thoroughly enough to oppose or support. I'm just getting the impression some of the prose about the album's music didn't mesh with your personal taste, so you used objections like linking style (I don't think Criterion 2 warrants linking items with no articles) and two details in the lead (including the producer using his laptop to produce the album) to give substance to objecting to the article altogether. I'm willing to embrace criticism that's actionable, as in the previous two reviewer's comments, which I addressed accordingly because specific items from top to bottom were discussed. The first reviewer gave the impression that they went through all or most of the prose with what they raised, and the second reviewer at least admitted they hadn't gone through it completely yet and could not decide to support or oppose. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I certainly am stating my opinion just like everyone else who comments, and you are certainly free to disagree with my opinions. However, I don't think the article is written very well, and I won't be removing my objection until that changes. If my objection is seen to be invalid by the decision-makers, I won't take it personally. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
After seeing that you've supported the FAC for ...And Justice for All (album), I don't see how you can criticize the prose in this article. If any article needs to be copy-edited, it's that one--there are present participles throughout the article, including its "Music" section, pronouns from the previous paragraph arent repeated at the start of a new one like it's correct to (including the third paragraph of the "Music" section), awkward phrases like "...has a lyrical material featuring a...", missing commas after full mdy dates per MOS:DATE, and unexceptional/not uniform citation formatting. I really don't feel you've given a thorough review, either of this article or that one, especially of the prose. Either that, or you're applying some dubious double-standard to this article, or I'm beginning to question your understanding of correct prose. Dan56 (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. As indopug alluded to below my review, the you don't seem to actually understand the album or the sources you've read. You've repeated attacked me for what I've chosen to point out, but I've stated a few times now that I stand by my comments and my objection. Comparing your article to others might be a useful exercise to improve your own article, but comparing my review of your article to others in order to marginalize my opinion is not so much of a useful exercise. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how he alluded to that. And I don't see how I could improve my article by comparing it to the flawed prose of the one you supported. I brought up legitimate, specific issues. It's your choice to overlook them as a reviewer there, but seeing how you supported it reaffirms my belief that you did not do your due diligence as a reviewer here. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment This article cannot be considered comprehensive unless this long New Yorker piece is incorporated. It has a lot of important things that the Wikipedia article misses—for example, that the lead singers are gay (and the implications this has on understanding the lyrics). While the "Critic from Publication said 'this' about the album' format works ok in the Reception section, it gets tiresome in Music and lyrics. Further, there's a sense of missing the forest for the trees; while the second paragraph of music namedrops 9 genres and 6 bands (including Cocteau Twins, mentioned thrice), it doesn't describe the basic impression one gets of the album, i.e. one of overwhelming quiet and intimacy.—indopug (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've incorporated material from it, including their sexual orientation. Several sources discuss the comparisons the album received from critics, so due weight was given, although I've removed one mention of Cocteau Twins. The quiet, intimate quality is duly noted in the bits mentioning McDonald (lead, background, recording), as that was really the impression he received, and perhaps others, although Jon Caramanica of The New York Times is cited in Release and reception as saying "it rarely feels intimate". Thx a lot for the new yorker article! Also, you might want to see how tiresome the Music and lyrics sections at ...And Justice for All (album) is. Dan56 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Rationalobserver[edit]

  • Oppose Per Spike Wilbury and Indopug, the prose in this article is of a mediocre/poor quality that does not satisfy the FAC criteria 1a. Some examples include, but are not limited to, the repetitive use of words such as "band", which is used 42 times with no effort to break up the monotony with pronouns or alternatives such as "group". The word "that" (37 uses, 10 in release and reception) is used repeatedly and awkwardly to introduce thoughts, such as "found that", "felt that", "trusted that", "said that", "revealed that", "remarked that", "believed that", "wrote that", "explained that", "reported that", etcetera. The word "and" appears 13 times in the first paragraph of Background, and it's used excessively throughout. The prose is also misleading, such as this: "Critics particularly praised the music, which they found seductive, polished, and precisely performed." Critics is plural, but this statement is sourced to only one writer. There are also several instances of less than encyclopedic word choice used outside direct quotes; e.g., "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "austere" is used four times, thrice in Music and lyrics, "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music". Per WP:PEACOCK, words like "acclaimed" and "remarkable" ought not be used outside quotes. The article's prose is far from "engaging", and it is certainly not "brilliant [or] of a professional standard".
I've removed/replaced numerous "that"s and "band"s. I don't see the problem with the "and"s; they serve their function and reduce the number of short, choppy sentences that would otherwise be in the article. Often times, it's unavoidable, particularly when certain band members need to be mentioned together, especially Croft and Sim. I've removed the characterization originally attributed to the Exclaim! source, which verifies "Press for the band's ... sound has been unanimously glowing." [Exclaim! writer's personal characterization of that sound omitted here] Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's but one element of the poor condition the prose is currently in. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Apart from "austere" (which I've replaced with "unadorned"/"unembellished"/"simple") and "emotional lyrics" (which is attributed several times in #Music and lyrics), the other instances of "less than encyclopedic word choice" are all attributed (in-text) to their source. Please don't mistake the words listed in the quotebox at WP:PEACOCK as banned from use; the policy says that those are the words that happen to be used "often ... without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". The policy doesn't say they cant be used outside quotes. "Widespread acclaim" is established among several sources that profiled/wrote about the album or the group, while "remarkable" is an opinion attributed in the text to AllMusic's Heather Phares. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are using the same creative words as the cited authors, then these words need to be in quotes, or else you are stealing their creativity and voicing it as Wikipedia/you. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remarkable", Phares' word, isn't the word used in this article, although WP:PARAPHRASE says "quoting (with or without quotation marks)" is appropriate within reason. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". I think your paraphrasing is troublesome. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This is acceptable, per WP:PARAPHRASE, which states "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." This is what I did: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You are citing an essay, Dan56; Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is not a guideline or policy, and close paraphrasing is never a good thing in brilliant writing. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm citing the policy on plagiarism: WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism (near where the green check marks are) → "copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation." and.. "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep reading: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The article also fails 1d and 1b, as the prose is far from neutral, particularly the Release and reception section, which devotes 879 words to praise and just 70 words to criticism, leaving out the fact that many critics have viewed this album and group with disdain, calling it overrated and boring. This is also an issue with 1c, as many sources are not represented here, presumably because they do not share the over the top enthusiasm of the critics cited. The article fails 2a, as Spike Wilbury pointed out, particularly with the odd mention of "reverb in her lead guitar parts", which is not an appropriate level of detail for the lead. Further, the lead mentions four music genres, none of which are listed in the infobox.
The section is neutral in form; representing the viewpoints "proportionately" per WP:CRIT. More weight is given to the positive reviews and much less to the criticism, based on the reviews aggregated at Metacritic (and also Any Decent Music? for another reference). If I were to be more stringent about the proportion of positive to negative, the second paragraph would be even smaller, since the positives were nearly universal based on sources like the aggregate sites and profiles like The New Yorker piece which indoplug offered (as it mentions no critical view of the album), but that one short second paragraph should guarantee neutrality, although I understand how you got the impression that it didn't. The most reliable sources (profiles and the like on the album) mention the reception in terms of unanimous/widespread, glowing reviews, while at Metacritic, there are 24 positive reviews to just the one mixed review ([19]), so that's what I based it on. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The content of the section is far from neutral. I.e., where are the numerous voices that do not praise this album? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There weren't numerous instances of that. Like I mentioned before, there was only one mixed review according to Metacritic. As of now, the proportion in this section is five positive reviews mentioned to two critical ones. How can there be a question of neutrality when the proportion at Metacritic is 24 to 1, and none of the sources that go into any detail on this album's reception mention points of criticism? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Like I said above, you have almost 900 words detailing praise, but only 70 for criticism. The album is not universally enjoyed, though one would never know that by reading this article, hence the issue with 1d. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I heard you, and responded accordingly. According to reliable sources on this topic (which I presented to you), this album is universally enjoyed by critics, hence my issue with your objection. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Three years after its release, the album “xx” still seems overrated. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I researched the most reliable sources available, not a student newspaper blog from Eastern Michigan University. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The comparisons and elements the critics likened the album to are duly noted in #Music and lyrics, as are the critics who explicitly called it an "indie pop album" or a "dream pop album", so discretion was used. I don't see how the article flat-out fails a criteria because of one detail/sentence fragment that isn't particularly to your liking. That doesn't really sound fair to me is all. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is all a matter of opinion, or else bots would do the FA reviews, not people. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Um that's a rather indirect answer. You've cited criteria 2a from WP:FACR, which says the article should have "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". How does the sentence fragment about reverb make this article's lead a failure in that respect? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not properly summarizing if you include this minor point in the lead. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I understood that to be your opinion, but I was asking how? It doesn't seem a minor enough point when the reverb setting is elaborated on in the body, twice, in "recording" and "music and lyrics", with respect to Croft's guitar sound. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
For example, you summarize the 610 word section on the tour with 13 words, and you've devoted 8 words to the reverb. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You're picking nits to give substance to a mealy-mouthed objection. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article also fails criteria 4, particularly the excessive section devoted to touring (610 words) that seems better suited at The xx, or a topical article devoted to that tour. There are also some potential issues with paraphrasing, such as: Article: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut", Source: "a remarkable debut". I suggest that this nom be withdrawn pending a copyedit by someone who can smoothen the prose and avoid some of the repetition and peacockery, and introduce some critical balance for the sake of neutrality. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
MOS:ALBUM has a specific section devoted to creating such sections (including how it was received, the band's onstage setup, etc.) on an album's supporting tour when there isn't enough for a stand-alone article (cf. Disintegration (The Cure album)). Furthermore, the tour (like the other things I decided to include in this article) are based on the most reliable sources found on this album, so due weight was given. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Most album articles do not include a lengthy section on the accompanying tour, and IMO they shouldn't. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You disagree that MOS:ALBUM suggests the creation of such sections? Or do you mean of sections as lengthy as this? If so, which parts do you feel go into too much detail? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
MOS:ALBUM says, "information about notable tours and festivals should be incorporated into either the artist's page, or the album article for which the tour is supporting." Are you contenting that I am wrong to suggest that this info is better suited at the artist page? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"...for which the tour is supporting". The tour specifically supporting this album is given a section in this article. What in your past FAC experience gives you the impression that this isn't appropriate, at least to the point of failing an FACR criteria? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the article to too long, and I would merge the touring section elsewhere to rectify that. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're making a new complaint (article length) to justify a suspect objection. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"a remarkable debut" attributed to the critic in-text is not a paraphrasing issue; per WP:PARAPHRASE, "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you understand paraphrasing all that well, which is a complaint that Spike Wilbury raised above. If "remarkable" is the exact creative expression from the source, then it should be in quotes. Paraphrasing is about avoiding the creative words, not re-phrasing them with your own conjunctions and prepositions. I stand by my assertion that "remarkable" is not a word that should be found outside quote marks in encyclopedic writing, per WP:PEACOCK. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver:, "remarkably poised and sophisticated debut" is not the exact expression from the source. WP:PEACOCK is a guideline meant to prevent use of such words without attribution, not prevent their use altogether. Per WP:PARAPHRASE quotation marks aren't a requirement for limited close paraphrasing. Considering I linked the source for you to compare, what part of "Heather Phares ... hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group" is in violation of WP:PARAPHRASE? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". I think your paraphrasing is, at best, troublesome. Like I said above, proper paraphrasing avoids the key creative words that make the author's statement unique. Consider using a thesaurus. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't an example of "proper paraphrasing", but of close paraphrasing with in-text attribution, which is acceptable per WP:PARAPHRASE: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding John Smith wrote ..., together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph." This is what I did: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that as an educator, I would take issue with that if one of my students did that as many times as you've done it here. I teach them to identify the uniquely creative words and replace them with equivalents except when directly quoting. I stand by that, and I suggest that you need a stronger justification for playing fast and loose with copyrighted material then a Wikipedia essay. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the three or four examples you brought up, the policy on plagiarism: WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism (near where the green check marks are) → "copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation." and.. "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep reading: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Look, I'm not going to go back and forth with you like Spike Wilbury did; FAC is not peer review. After 30 days at FAC, this article is still not up to snuff, and it should not be passed until the prose is improved to meet FAC criteria 1a. After it's been copyedited, bring it back to FAC and ping me. I'll take another look at that time if I'm not too busy in real life. For now, here are a few other issues I noticed:

  • You mention the critical reception before the album's release.
Those are stylistic comparisons that are part of #Music and lyrics, not how critics received it, i.e. positively or negatively. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Fluffery involves "unprovable proclamations"; "widespread acclaim" is verified by several sources. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "a protracted supporting tour that helped increase their ... reputation in the press"
This is an odd statement to follow: "xx was released in August 2009 by Young Turks, an imprint of XL, and received widespread acclaim from critics." So it earned widespread acclaim, but the tour later increased acceptance amongst critics?
Yes, what's wrong with that? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Spike Wilbury that "who employed reverb in her lead guitar parts" is not an appropriate detail for the lead.
You have yet to elaborate on why. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD, but this is too much to ask of a reviewer. You are combative and rude. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "On late nights" is an awkward construction.
Gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "greatly influenced" is unencyclopedic.
Gripe. I'll elaborate. Since you're standard for wording is "encyclopedic", here are several encyclopedic works that use the phrase you're claiming is "unencyclopedic". You're entitled to your personal preferences with writing and the like, but you shouldn't push them onto others or hold this candidate hostage by making it the basis of your objection. Dan56 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The band covered R&B hits such as Aaliyah's "Hot Like Fire" (1997) and Womack & Womack's "Teardrops" (1988) when they performed live and recorded their demos.[4]"
This reads as, "The band covered R&B hits ... and recorded their demos.[4]", which is an awkward construction and sloppy prose.
No, it reads "The band covered R&B hits... when they performed live and recorded their demos". Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "McDonald was impressed by the intimate quality and moments of silence on the demos"
Another awkward construction that illustrates my concern with the article's prose.
Another gripe that illustrates my concern with your intentions here. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you now questioning my intentions? Again, you are unnecessarily hostile, and I hope I never have to deal with you again. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Recording and production
  • "Croft, on the other hand, called it a "pretty confined space" the size of a bathroom.[7]"
Another poor quality construction. Does "the size of a bathroom" seem tacked-on?
  • "prepared a budget to the label"
Again, this is indicative of the awkward prose throughout.
Again, this is indicative of the mealy mouthed gripes throughout. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"prepared a budget to the label", or "prepared a budget for the label". It's an issue I see with ESL students. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I used "to the label..." to avoid repetition with "...for the studio's..."; I've revised it to "prepared a budget for the label to fund the studio's..." Dan56 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "recording equipment specifically suited for the xx such as a modestly sized"
The article needs a top to bottom check for comma usage, which is poor throughout.
Comma usage before "such as" depends on the modifier that precedes it. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings"
"had them"?
Yes. What? Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's terrible prose, "had them write down", really? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sim, who played a Precision Bass manufactured in the 1970s"
This is far too much detail for a summary style overview article, same with mentioning the Fender Bassman, Gibson SG, Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, Blues Deluxe amplifier, Epiphone Les Paul, Gibson ES-335, delay pedal, and a Roland Micro Cube.
  • "amplifier with a reverb setting"
I'll again echo Spike Wilbury's concerns that you do not understand the material you are paraphrasing. There is no such thing as a reverb setting; amplifiers have a reverb tank, that has a control knob that adjusts the level in relation to the dry signal.
Really? well here's an article by Sound on Sound that uses the exact phrase. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This is just more proof that you do not understand the musical terminology that you are using. The article you cited above is using it correctly, but you are not. I.e., an amplifier does not have a reverb setting, an amplifier has a reverb tank, which you adjust the setting for using a potentiometer. The setting varies as you adjust the pot. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
" the reverb setting on his amplifier", "reverb setting on your amp", "guitar amplifier with chorus and reverb setting". Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If your point is that others make the same mistake, I would say that your point is irrelevant and your approach to research misguided. Otherwise reliable sources make mistakes that often get repeated by other reliable sources. No musician would say they have a guitar amp with a reverb setting. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF concerns "similarities across projects" and articles on WP, not reliable sources, another guideline I feel you've misinterpreted. May I ask what qualifies you as an expert in this regard, considering you've questioned my use of a few music terms like this and I should forgo these sources and trust your personal knowledge? Or with regards to prose for that matter? Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to know why I should trust you over sources that literally use the same wording? Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a musician of 35 years; I play guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, a little saxophone, and sometimes when I'm a little tipsy, the didgeridoo. A guitar amp either has or does not have an onboard reverb unit, which is called a reverb tank. The amount of reverb, or "wet" signal, is controlled with a potentiometer that is wired to the amplifier circuit just before a reverb choke. There is no "reverb setting", but you do adjust your reverb setting from 1–10 using the pot. I.e., reverb is an effect, and it's is accomplished by a reverb unit, called a tank, not a setting. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This effects review site uses "reverb tank" and "reverb setting" interchangeably. While you have your experience and personal knowledge, the sources at least suggest my wording should suffice. Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You might be confusing "setting" with "channel", as some guitar amplifiers have "clean" channels that do not have any effects and "wet" or "dirty" channels that have reverb, chorus, distortion, etcetera. If she was specifically referring to her Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, with one or two 12" speakers, then I have some personal knowledge of this, because I used to own a Hot Rod Deville, with 4 10" speakers, an American one before Fender started making them in Mexico. It's essentially the same amp, and it does have a clean channel and two distorted ones (labeled drive and more drive), but all three have reverb. I.e., a Fender Hot Rod Deluxe does not have a clean channel without reverb. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "After all the instrumental elements had been tracked"
This is verbose. instrumental elements → instruments
Not verbose, gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "They rarely sang backup to one another on any of the songs."
Does this mean there are only harmonies, with no lead singing?
The source is cited for you to check. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "drafts of his beats.[2] Smith created his beats"
More awkward prose.
More gripes. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday"
Gripe. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Smith also created click tracks for the rest of the band"
One does not really "create" a click track; it's merely a metronomic tone generated by the recording console, which I think speaks to Spike's concern that you do not understand the musical jargon that you attempt to paraphrase.
There are many high-quality sources that use this phrase "created a click track" ([20]). I think this speaks to my concern that both of you are too obstinate to look beyond your personal criteria for these kind of articles. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "he refined and incorporated his beats into the songs for three to four weeks"
The article is riddled with improper and confusing syntax such as this.
Your review is riddled with gripes such as these. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Most of xx was recorded from Christmastime to late January"
Per WP:REALTIME, this should be December, not Christmastime.
Finally, a legitimate issue. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues are too numerous for me to mention them all here; I don't have enough time. Again, FAC is not a form of peer review, whereby we work together to improve the article until I change my oppose, which stands. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics
  • "The songs' melodies are separated by rests."
I agree with Spike; this is an indication that the paraphraser does not understand the material. I.e., melodies aren't separated by rests, rests occur within the notes of the melodies.
  • "before they lead to quietly sung verses.[15] Croft and Sim exchange verses on 'Crystalised'"
I see lots of this type of repetitive sentences. It's poor quality prose that lacks smooth transitions.
  • Source: "Croft and Sim craft languid, sparsely arranged love songs that recall atmospheric 80s acts such as the Cocteau Twins and Mazzy Star. Better still, they betray their south London roots: gentle, plaintive melodies are framed by minimal beats that nod to dubstep and R&B."
Article: "According to Sarah Boden of The Observer, the album's unadorned, dream pop love songs are reminiscent of Cocteau Twins and Mazzy Star, because they feature low tempos, moody melodies, and rhythms influenced by R&B and dubstep.[19]"
1) What is a "low tempo"? Did you mean slow tempo? This is another example of your apparent misunderstanding of musical terminology. 2) Boden does not mention tempo, so where did you get this?
Languid = slow/relaxed; "tempo" = the speed at which a passage of music is played. Dan56 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Paraphrasing
Article: "dub-inflected post-punk"
Source: "dub influenced post-punk"
That's limited close paraphrasing with in-text attribution; you should know the policy, because I've reiterated it to you four or five times by now. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "On xx, Croft and Sim touched on themes of love, desire, and loss in their songwriting, which she said has "always been based around emotions, right from the start."
The pronoun she is referring to Sim, who unless I am mistaken is a man.
Actually it's referring to Croft, but if you feel readers may be confused, I'll change it. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Article: "Robert Christgau believed they rely on a low-key, vulnerable style"
I'm not seeing where Christgau says anything about low-key or vulnerable.
He does in his NPR review, which I've bundled in that citation along with his MSN MUsic review. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Article: "the yearning expressed on 'Heart Skipped a Beat'"
Where are you getting this?
The NME review says "aching with longing". Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Paraphrasing
Article: "tacit intimacy"
Source: "natural intimacy"
I still don't think you understand that close paraphrasing is acceptable with in-text attribution. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)\
"Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." This is exactly what I am talking about, because you must distinguish the unique or creative words from the generic; i.e., there is no need to paraphrase generic words. The examples to which you refer, at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism, do not contain any "distinctive words or phrases" like "intimate", "remarkably poised", "emotional lyrics", "moody melodies", "a low-key, vulnerable style", "tacit intimacy", "express a jaded yearning", "the album's irresistible music", etcetera. I dare say that you apparently do not understand this concept. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here". Nearly every comment you make regarding this issue is misguided, and your position reveals your lack of understanding. The source and the third example share two "creative" words: boring and read, the later of which is used in a different sense, as the source used it as a verb, but the paraphrase used it as a noun. There is only one potential candidate in that example for quote marks: "boring", which could be understood as generic enough so as to not require them. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remarkable" is paraphrased as an adjective in this article, but is an adverb in the source: "AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut from such a young group.[33]" Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Phares: "restraint and sophistication ... XX is still a remarkable debut", your prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". This is plagiarism via close paraphrase. You've also altered the meaning, another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was remarkably poised/restrained.Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Read the review: "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive"; the meaning is the same. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I did read the review, that's why I know that you are wrong. Phares says, "While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut." Which means the poise "sometimes works against them", but it's still a "remarkable debut", not that it is remarkably poised. Are you for real, because you are absolutely terrible at paraphrasing, and you won't accept advice from some of the best colleges and universities. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The album's Roman numeral title refers to each of the band members having turned 20 years old by the time they released xx.[7] Because of their age, many critics interpreted the songs as nocturnal depictions of adolescent lust.[1]"
This is out-of-place in Music and lyrics.
It's the most appropriate place to put it in the article, as it ties into the paragraph's topic--the members' age and its relationship to their lyrics. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've refuted your point about close paraphrasing, peacock terms, and regurgitated the same policies at length, but you're incredibly obstinate in your position and vague/indirect about the complaints you make. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Now you are getting abusive. I'm not sure you are the right type of person to bring articles here if you always resort to personal attacks and insults. You are not the writer that you apparently think you are, as this article is not at all "brilliant". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You're being oversensitive. You felt my prose was poor, I felt your objections were petty and your explanations were irritatingly evasive, avoiding the policies and guidelines that clearly justified my position on certain parts of your review. Dan56 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to be less combative and rude if you want people to spend their time reviewing your work. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Likewise. Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Dan56 and close paraphrasing[edit]

In the above discussion, Dan56 has repeatedly admitted that he intentionally includes close paraphrases in his writing. He defends this position and states that close paraphrasing is not plagiarism.

Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text. In fact, the example in the third quotebox at WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism is closer paraphrasing than anything you've brought up here: "Source (John Smith, The Times, 7 November 2010): "Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read." vs "John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read." Dan56 (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

However, this is not at all the position of the Wikilegal team regarding copyright, or the academic world regarding what technically constitutes plagiarism:

FTR, Dan56 is arguing that this is an appropriate paraphrase:

Source (Phares): "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive (5th sentence) ... While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut."(11th and last sentence)
Article prose: "a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut"

This is plagiarism via close paraphrase, as Dan56 has retained the distinct or creative words: remarkable (though in altered form) and sophisticated, while swapping restraint for poise, a basic synonym exchange that does not satisfy fair paraphrasing. He's also altered the meaning of the source material, which is another sign of bad paraphrasing, since Phares is not saying that the album was "remarkably poised and sophisticated", but rather that the album shows "restraint and sophistication" and that it is "a remarkable debut", which are two distinct points. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"This restraint and sophistication ... all the more impressive" = "...remarkable". Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Technically, Phares could've been using "remarkable" to refer to aspects of the album outside its poise and sophistication. (For the record, I don't mind "sophistication" being used. I can't think of any synonyms except "complicated", which has a slightly negative connotation, or "complex", which I think slightly implies technical complexity.) Tezero (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Reread the review. Phares uses "remarkable" in the last sentence, saying that it was overall "a remarkable debut" despite the sometimes excessive "subtlety and consistency". Much earlier in the review, she said it showed signs of "sophistication", not that it was remarkably sophisticated. This is an improper synthesis of three distinct adjectives, and Dan56 is using the last one to modify two earlier ones. She said the album was remarkable, not that it was remarkably sophisticated, and there is a significant difference. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"Sometimes excessive" or "showed signs of" is not indicated anywhere in the review. Phares found its "restraint and sophistication" worthy of being or likely to be noticed especially as being uncommon or extraordinary: "These tracks are so sleek, they're practically sculptural, and they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; artists twice their age would be proud to call the maturity and confidence that flow seemingly effortlessly through the xx their own." WP:SYNTH applies to using multiple sources, btw, not adjectives. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"Sometimes excessive" or "showed signs of" is not indicated anywhere in the review.
The fifth sentence of Phares' review: "This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive", from that I get "showed signs of sophistication". The last sentence of Phares' review: "While the band's subtlety and consistency threaten to work against them at times, XX is still a remarkable debut that rewards repeated listens and leaves listeners wanting more." From this I get that the "restraint" borders on excessive. FTR, aren't you connecting these two distinct points to say "remarkably sophisticated", and aren't you doing this outside quote marks as though these are your own words, and not a modified quote? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There are no "signs of"; Phares explicitly says "This restraint and sophistication", there is "restraint and sophistication" on the album, not just "signs of". Furthermore, "subtlety" does not mean the same thing as "restraint", and Phares does not elaborate on how either "threaten to work against them". You're free to assume she believes there's too much of the "subtlety and consistency". I'm not using anything as though they are my own words; you can't put "remarkably" or "sophisticated" in quotation marks when that specific word is not used anywhere in the review, but Phares is attributed in-text anyway because I'm summarizing her opinion. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You're slitting hairs, and I don't have time for this. I wish you the best of luck, and I encourage you to make some attempt to better understand paraphrasing, versus rejecting my advice out of hand as though I do not know what I am talking about and you do, because I think that you have plagiarized several authors in writing this article, and I am concerned that you do not seem to care. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I noticed that "rewards repeated listens" is an exact phrase from Phares' review, and this phrase is included verbatim and outside quotation marks in the article, but cited to Sasha Frere-Jones' review. Can you please show me what material you paraphrased from Frere-Jones to assert that he said it "rewards repeated listens"? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"That’s one reason that this short album, at just under thirty-nine minutes, is so easy to play and replay. Nothing wears out its welcome ... Play the album a few times and all of a sudden other pop music sounds abrasive and overstuffed and shouty." The burden is on you as the reviewer to check it yourself btw. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think it's slightly concerning that your paraphrase of Frere-Jones contains a verbatim phrase from the critic that you cite immediately following your paraphrase of Frere-Jones? You obviously picked this phrase up from Phares and plagiarized it as your summary of Frere-Jones. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"You obviously..."? (WP:GF) It's a fairly common phrase used in music reviews: "the dreaded rock-critic cliché 'rewards repeated listens'", [21], [22]) Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So your defense is that it's not plagiarizing Phares because it's a cliché, and you think that clichés are appropriate for FAs, which are required to represent brilliant writing? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism → "use of common expressions and idioms, including those that are common in sub-cultures such as academia" Dan56 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that, because it's a well-worn cliché, it's not plagiarism, but one does not expect to find clichés in brilliant prose, nor written in Wikipedia's voice, especially in an FA (see FAC criteria 1a) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Partial source review[edit]

In case there is any lingering ambiguity regarding this article and concerns about close paraphrasing, I decided to take another look at the sourcing. Note: All of these examples come from the first three sections only.

  • Source: "they were in thrall to the stripped back inventiveness of a strain of American urban r’n’b pioneered by producers like Timbaland and The Neptunes, who would construct hits from percussive beats, handclaps, odd samples and vocal harmonies."
Article: "The xx were greatly influenced by American R&B producers such as The Neptunes and Timbaland, whose minimalist productions incorporated vocal harmonies, handclaps, unconventional samples, and pronounced beats"
This is just the sort of superficial alteration of source material that constitutes plagiarism. The original structure is intact, and the prose is not so much paraphrased as it has been re-arranged with a synonym or two. This is not a fair paraphrase, and it's only the third sentence that I checked today.
  • Source: "The xx had originally come to the attention of XL imprint Young Turks after impressing Katie O'Neill, who works for the label, with the demos they'd posted on their MySpace page. Katie subsequently lent the band a guitar for a London gig, they popped a stack of demos round to the XL HQ in Ladbroke Grove and it wasn't long before they were signed up and raring to go."
Article: "After posting the demos on their Myspace page, the xx drew the interest of Young Turks, an imprint label of XL Recordings. They submitted the demos to XL's head office at Ladbroke Grove and were subsequently signed to a recording contract."
Again, this is cosmetic paraphrasing that retrains most of the original sentence structure, with only a minor reordering of two clauses. This is plagiarism.
The rearrangement of reworded material is hardly minor, and almost half of the quote you picked was omitted and not paraphrased altogether. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Recording and production
  • Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."
Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left"
"At night" and "recorded" is what you're arguing? They're the simplest and most obvious phrases to use here (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source (ibid): "I got each of the band a notebook where they could write down their settings"
Article: "McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings"
You're misrepresenting a sentence fragment from the larger text; Article: "To reproduce the sound he had heard on the band's demos, McDonald had them write down their instruments' settings and test different areas of the studio to determine where he should record each member." Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source (ibid): "echo‑laden guitar sounds"
Article: "echo-filled sound"
Unavoidable, the simplest and most obvious phrases to use here--"sound" (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism); further more, you're misrepresenting another fragment from a sentence that quotes: "McDonald felt would best replicate her 'icy', echo-filled sound on the demos". Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source (ibid): "vocals seem to portray an almost intimate late‑night conversation"
Article: "vocals sound as 'intimate' and conversational"
The slight alteration of conversation → conversational does not qualify as a fair paraphrase.
Yes it does, and he's quoted and attributed in-text. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source (ibid): "expensive mics for the record we borrowed"
Article: "among the more expensive items he had borrowed"
"The microphones were among the more expensive items he had borrowed for the studio's preliminary setup so XL would not be overwhelmed with a costly budget." Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source (ibid): "street noises and things that'd just been picked up by accident in the background"
Article: "unintended background noises such as street sounds"
Changing "Street noises" to "street sounds" and "accident" to "unintended" is plagiarism via close paraphrase.
Not only is the sentence structure different, you're nitpicking simple phrases like "sounds" again. Dan56 (talk)
Music and lyrics
  • Article: "Russell felt the xx's music evoked the early hip hop records he listened to when he was young, as they were often limited to vocals, samples, and beats."
  • Source: "I grew up listening to a lot of hip‑hop ... A lot of my favourite records when I was young had a lot of vocals and drums and samples and not that much else ... but to me, it was the simplicity of early hip‑hop that I heard in it."
This is more plagiarism via close paraphrasing: "early hip hop" and "vocals, samples, and beats" → "early hip‑hop" and "vocals and drums and samples"
Russell ("felt that") is attributed in the sentence, "vocals, samples, and beats" → simple, non-creative lists of information (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source: "Each song is founded on the spare, kinetic interplay between programmed drumbeats and Oliver Sims's lightly thumbed basslines. From there, Romy Croft and Baria Quershi fill out the songs with minimal guitar work, using simple riffs as much for texture as for rhythm or melody."
Article: "The songs on xx are built around a framework of basslines and beats, and they incorporate simple guitar riffs for melody, rhythm, and texture."
Musical terms too technical to paraphrase ("basslines", "texture", etc.), different sentence structure, the last three items listed are "simple, non-creative lists of information" (WP:PLAG#What is not plagiarism) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source: "the song runs for two minutes with only her voice and the bass and guitar"
Article: "Croft sings its first two minutes over only guitar and bass"
Different structure, "guitar" "bass" rearranged, "two minutes" is unique enough, but you'll argue otherwise? Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source: "moody, minimalist indie pop"
Article: "a minimalist, melancholic indie pop album"
Author is attributed in-text, but you've misrepresented another from a larger piece of text. Also, "Minimalist (music)" and "indie pop" are unique terms referring to specific musical styles/aesthetics. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source: "producer Martin Hannett’s dub influenced post-punk, the rusty edges he brought to Joy Division"
Article: "the dub-inflected post-punk sound of English producer Martin Hannett and his work with Joy Division"
Author attributed in-text, misrepresentation. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Source: "All these songs seem in the first flush of love ... 'VCR's ...natural intimacy"
Article: "all of the songs deal with the consuming emotions associated with first love, including the tacit intimacy on "VCR"
No, no, it's "Article: 'According to Emily Mackay of NME, all of the songs..." (in-text attribution) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Article: "the xx had been encouraged to self-produce their album by Russell, who felt it would remain faithful to both their distinctive live sound and the DIY ethic practiced at XL since its beginnings as a rave label."
Unless I missed it, Russell is not mentioned by name in the cited source, and there is nothing about remaining "faithful to both their distinctive live sound and the DIY ethic practiced at XL since its beginnings as a rave label", as though this is unsourced original research.
It was attributed to Frost 2009. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Article: "Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday."
There is no mention in the cited source of the MPC being a birthday present, so this is either unsourced or it's OR.
It's sourced, in a bundle; the second citation didnt show because of a typographical error. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have identified no less than 15 instances of plagiarism in the first three sections, and I did not check every sentence or source. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont trust you with regards to paraphrasing here. You're nitpicking unique technical terms, misrepresenting sentence fragments out of larger article text, including sentences with in-text attribution, and you're attempts to rewrite policy at WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:CLOSE PARAPHRASING are dubious because they've occurred after you made objections to this article on those grounds, and have been reverted since you made them without consensus or discussion ([23], [24]) You appear to have done this to substantiate your objection to this article (or my writing in general) and undermine this review. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Oppose sorry Dan, but close paraphrasing is as unacceptable as plagiarism in any articles. Given the above issues listed by Rationalobserver and the fact that this article doesn't at all discuss the album's singles beyond listings in the infobox (therefore preventing this article from being comprehensive), I suggest withdrawal and giving this a thorough copyedit to get rid of all copyright violations. Take to the GOCE if needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, the few instances of close-paraphrasing involve critics' voices and are always attributed in-text per WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism → "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought." I don't see how you can say "close paraphrasing is as unacceptable as plagiarism in any articles". Furthermore, there is no requirement at MOS:ALBUM to elaborate on singles; there is a promotion section that mentions their releases and lack of airplay. MOS:ALBUM does recommend merging single information here when "there is rarely enough information for songs and singles to all have their own individual articles", but all the singles have their own articles. Dan56 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Dan56, close paraphrasing that contains distinctive words or phrases outside quotation marks is plagiarism. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be extensive detail, but they should at least be mentioned in the lead. It would also help to talk about their composition at some point, and perhaps what critics said of the songs themselves (commercial aspects not withstanding). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Snuggums, and I think this is a strange objection on the part of Dan56 when you consider that he has written more than 600 words to describe the accompanying tour, and he mentions the "reverb setting", but he won't mention the singles in the lead at the request of another editor. Is the reverb really more notable than the singles on which reverb was used? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, the information in the lead is based on due weight, and singles weren't an important part of this album's story, based on what the sources available on it have written about it. "Composition" (Music/lyrics) of some of the singles are discussed in #Music and lyrics. The licensing of songs (not as singles) did help this album commercially, and that was noted in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, singles take more space to cover with text and are less representative than reverb is of the album as a whole. Tezero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what? Discussing the singles that emerged from an album (how they were selected, how they performed, etc.) seems of particular interest, whereas the current discussion of the use of reverb on the album is firmly inane. As I pointed out several days ago, reverb is used on every recording everywhere, and the way it's written about here is just silly. There might be something notable or interesting about Croft's use of reverb, but we'd never know it from reading this article. I admire Rationalobserver for going a lot further down the rabbit hole than I did, but this whole FAC has devolved into a farce that illustrates why no-one should spend their time criticizing Dan56's writing. He's displayed rude behavior the willingness to strap on his guns and do battle over any little thing, being obstinate and sometimes simply dismissing others' opinions as "gripes" not worthy of his attention. Someone please put this nomination out of its misery. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Paraphrasing aside, I'm not convinced this is comprehensive enough to meet FA criteria, especially given Indopug's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS:, I addressed Indopug's comments immediately after he made them and resolved his concern that this article was missing information from the New Yorker article, which I subsequently added to the article, including the specific item indopug mentioned--the sexual orientation of the singers. What other concern do you have about how comprehensive this article is? No important information about this topic is missing. Dan56 (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't give much detail on specific songs in terms of how they are composed or if some songs were generally better received than others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the point of summary style (Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details). Because this article's topic is the album, that's what's generally discussed, the album. The best sources on this article had no discussion of certain songs' reception. Also, not only did the most reliable sources on this topic not mention how certain songs were received, there were hardly any reviews on the singles themselves, but even if they did that information would be appropriately incorporated in the singles articles per summary style. If anything, though, the first paragraph establishes the similarities in composition or as a whole ("The songs on xx are built around a framework ...". "Songs such as "Crystalised" and "VCR" begin with a melodic ostinato and some understated musical elements, such as a xylophone on the latter, before they lead to quietly sung"). Also, the PopMatters review summarized in the second paragraph of the Reception section reinforces this idea that the compositions of the songs are somewhat uniform ("...consistent structures and tempos of the songs..."). The article doesn't give much detail about those things because that would be too much detail, especially when five of the album's songs (the singles, as well as "Shelter") have articles of their own. Information on the songs should back as an example discussion of the album rather than stray off-topic on forced discussions of individual songs. I used the same approach on Marquee Moon and New York Dolls (album)--general discussion of the album, with certain songs described to support or reinforce those discussions of the album('s music/lyrics). Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Leigh_Leigh_headstone.png: Australia typically doesn't have freedom of panorama for engravings and photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Nikkimaria. I must admit I didn't even know what freedom of panorama was until I read your comment, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject. Section 65 of the 1968 copyright act [25] states: "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work..." I can assure you this headstone is in a place that is open to the public. Granted section 65 defines 'work' as "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship", which i'm not 100% a headstone falls into, but I don't see the problem here. I don't think anyone holds the copyright to the headstone, nor do I see how anyone could. The only reason I knew where to find the headstone to take a photo of it is because there is already a photo of it in the Australian Cemeteries Index [26]. Clearly people take photographs of Austrlaian headstones and put them on the internet, apparently without any controversy. Can you explain in a bit more detail what the issue is here? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Freikorp, that the work is in a place open to the public is not in dispute. However, unlike say a public sculpture or a building, this particular work is primarily two dimensional - its features are engravings and a photo. The Australian copyright act specifies that their freedom of panorama law does not extend to either engravings or photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, is the new FUR image i've uploaded to replace the headstone acceptable? Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    So this is an image that was used in the media but is not by the media - do we know what the original source of the image was? Also, the "unique historical image" tag is very hard to justify - I would recommend instead using {{non-free biog-pic}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've changed the tag accordingly; thanks. Leigh was a Newcastle High School student. It is the last annual school portrait photo that was taken before she died; obviously it was taken by whoever the school hired for their photos (does that mean the school holds the copyright?). As to which newspaper it appeared in first, and how the media got hold of a copy, I am not sure. I had to search through microform for The Newcastle Herald to write this article as online Australian newspaper archives don't usually go back to the 1980's. The Newcastle Herald repeatedly published a different photo of Leigh, but as it is on microform, the quality is insufficient for wikipedia. Does not knowing who published the image first or how they got a hold of it present a problem? Freikorp (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    To a degree. All fair-use tags require that you include information on the copyright holder and the image's current status. Based on your description, the photo likely would have been a work for hire, meaning it may be owned by the school, the photography company, or possibly even the parents, depending on the practices of that company. However, we can't know for sure. I suggest you include an explanation on the image description page that the copyright holder is unknown and what steps you have taken to try to determine its status. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I just found something new. This reliable source [27] publishes the photo, and specifies the source as "Supplied". Does that mean anything to you? I was thinking that might mean it was willingly given to the newspaper by the copyright holder. Also while we're on the subject, is there any way I could justify FUR for the image of Matthew Webster (Leigh's murderer) as seen in said article? Or would that be pushing it? I've always thought the article would benefit from a photo of him. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I would guess supplied by the family, who would most likely not be the copyright holder; even if it were supplied by the copyright holder, that note would not be sufficient to make it free for our purposes. As to the other image, that's less likely to be justifiable: assuming that Webster is still alive he is now out of jail and theoretically available for the creation of a free image, so the biog-pic tag would not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, just confirming that the current image is acceptable for FAC as User:Casliber's support is pending sorting out the copyright for the info box image, which I assumed was OK now. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    I left a message on User:GrahamColm's talk page, regarding the lack of reviews here. Apparently 2 votes of support isn't enough to pass FAC, and as this nomination is making its way towards the end of the list I am becoming a bit worried it won't get any further comments. Graham said the lack of reviews was a shame, and encouraged me to solicit further reviews whilst this nomination is still open, otherwise i'm just going to have to re-nominate it at a later date. As you've already reviewed the image, is there any chance I can beg you to review the whole article? Happy to do some form of QPQ; i've never reviewed at FAC but happy to review several DYKs or a couple GA nominations, which I have experience doing, in exchange. No worries if you're too busy though, i'll be happy enough with support on image or more information on what I need to do to get it. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments 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)
I might hav missed it but adding what she got drunk on'd be good too.
Link asphyxial, postmortem, resin,
  • Done. I linked resin, but do you think I should have linked "hash" instead, which appears earlier in the sentence? Freikorp (talk)
  • Missed that - either could be argued for here - so no biggie which. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cannabis resin.. - why capitalised here?
  • The word appears capitalised all throughout the article Cannabis; should it not be capitalised in this instance though? I already removed it, but I can add it back just as easy of course. Freikorp (talk)
  • That's weird - it's not a proper noun. Only reason to capitalise is when discussing the genus, and then it would be italicised as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
John Hatzistergos needs a descriptor as to why he is there "minister etc."
In 2009 a solicitor who acted on behalf of Leigh's family stated that given the advances in DNA testing technology, it was time to re-examine the evidence - this is important, was there any reported follow up on this?
  • This is important, but I can't find any more coverage on it. Out of desperation I sent an email to Dr Kerry Carrington, the most prominent researcher of the case; she informed me that the police 'lost' all of the evidence, and accordingly the evidence is not going to be re-examined as there is nothing to examine. Of course I can't use her email as a source, but it at least answered my question. Freikorp (talk)
Webster spoke to the media about the murder for the first time in 1997, and insisted that he acted alone in killing Leigh - when did he speak?
  • I don't know. The only evidence I have that this did in fact happen is the blurb from the article cited, which was published in 2004 and says he spoke to the media "seven years ago". Freikorp (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looks pretty good - good use of source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 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. 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)

Didier Drogba[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

It dispirits and frustrates me when FACs are archived for lack of activity, so I'll lay down a review here. Keep in mind, for better or for worse, that I know and care very little about soccer, even less than the average American. (I mainly edit and review video game-related articles here, but I've never played Super Mario Strikers even.) These are a few initial comments that by no means constitute a complete review; they're just things that jump out at me. Feel free to annoy me if I somehow forget about this nom.

  • ""will be leaving the club when his contract expires at the end of June"" - why does this need to be in quotes? Especially awkward when the sentence only adds "2012" afterward. Paraphrase or something.
  • In this entire subsection, there's a little too much "On such and such a date, so and so happened" wording. I mainly notice this in band/musician articles, and it really gets tiring to the eyes, so try to find more varied sentence structures or otherwise introduce the dates in different ways. (Of course, being from Freedom Land, I'm obligated to shed tears at seeing day before month, but I'll have to let that slide here...)
  • The section "2009–10" has some massively uneven paragraph lengths; see if you can reorganize or repartition information to flatten this out a bit.
  • In the section "International career", the paragraphs are moreso just quite short on average. I count ten, and I think it could easily be five or six.
  • "cease fire" - I think it's one word or hyphenated, either one.
  • "In September 2011, Drogba joined the Truth, Reconciliation and Dialogue Commission as a representative to help return peace to his home nation" - What did he do there? This whole paragraph just kind of tells the reader that he made peace over and over again without a whole lot of details, though I do like the anecdote at the paragraph's opening.
  • Sources 35 and 130 (The Daily Telegraph and ESPN) are dead links.

Tezero (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Davykamanzi, are you still active in this nom? Tezero (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: I haven't really been following the subsequent revisions of the article since I nominated because I've been very busy of late outside Wikipedia but I would say that I'm still active in this nomination. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, please fix these when you get around to it, and then ping me or something. Tezero (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fez (video game)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

Support as per comments below.

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Looks great; I just have a few complaints:

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

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

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

Media check (GermanJoe) - all OK[edit]

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

Source review by Tezero[edit]

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

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

Comments by[edit]

  • People with visual impairment would appreciate alternative text: a short description of the screenshots of gameplay, such as "Forest stage" and "Gomez standing over a waterfall"; who is Phil Fish and who is Renaud Bédard. (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a good idea. Remember, multiple thumbnails aren't against the rules. Tezero (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@, Tezero, done czar  18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMA should be followed: "on April 13, 2012,". (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In reception, removing non-notable authors improves the focus (length criterion); they appear in the references already.
  • When covering technical faults, I would expect the actual faults. "Game Informer as minor" is less useful than "frame rate stalls during autosaves". describes some serious bugs: "bombs that refuse to budge", "Entire areas of the world map disappear". These pretty serious bugs could be mentioned in the development section.
  • This would be a good time to decide whether should be italicized; there were no objections.[28]
  • It looks like some readers are interested in revenue. Perhaps the "At $10 per download" in its first day could be added. (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed your concerns, if you can take a look. On the other points: the reception reviewers are listed because the predominant WPVG preference is to list the opinions as the author's and not the magazine's. Not saying I agree, but I've seen FACs asked to conform to this standard. With technical faults, the jargon of screentearing and associated specifics would be needless information for the average reader and I consider it outside the article's scope. I think it would be original research to add anything about the game's revenues if nothing has been published in reliable sources. And I don't agree with that part of WP:COMMA, but that's another thing altogether. But everything else should be done czar  00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to mention the "anti-cubes"? What is the difference between an anti-cube and a cube from harder puzzles? (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it has sufficient context, yes—the anti-cubes come from harder puzzles. It's explained as much as the cubes. czar  16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is important to mention Montreal and Toronto? Are they Canadian cities? Why not simply say "Canadian developers"? Is the nationality important because of the Canadian government loan? (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It's for spatial context. In a previous draft, Bédard was mentioned as being from Montreal too. Is it unimportant or distracting to you? I don't feel strongly if it's changed to "Canadian", though I prefer specificity when it errs on the side of interesting czar  20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The remark "The two—of Montreal and Toronto, respectively[20]—" is quite distracting. As a reader that has hardly any knowledge of Canadian culture, I would appreciate some hints about "Montreal", "Toronto" and "Québécois". As a gamer, I would like to know the relevance to the subject; is video gaming in Canada special in any way? (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you're looking for. A link to video gaming in Canada would be only peripherally related, almost a submarine link. I'm not exactly the purveyor of Canadian culture myself, but Montreal and Toronto are global cities known worldwide and aren't linked for that reason. As for "Québécois", it's okay to use vocabulary unfamiliar to some. I'm changing the Montreal+Toronto mention to "Canadian", though I think the article will suffer for it. czar  00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are the links different for "puzzle platform game" in the lead and the first paragraph?
  • Why both links "indie video game" and "indie game" in the lead?
  • This "(X360)" in the infobox is confusing and I do not see more information in the body. Was Microsoft Studios the only publisher for X360? Did they participate in the X360 release and not in the Windows one?
  • Why both links "Microsoft Studios (game studio)" and "Microsoft Games Studios" in the article?
  • "Cube-like space", a cube has actually six sides; a square, four. Would "square-like space" be more appropriate? Would "horizontal square" be more precise?
  • "Accrete" does not appear in every dictionary.
  • Note 1 is confusing: it is about "The final sequence", but there is no mention of sequences before. The following occurrence is "sequences of tetriminos". Do the cubes form these tetrominos?
  • In "The game's developer described", "developer" means "designer", right?
  • Would "It prioritizes puzzle-solving and patience over dexterity" be more appropriate? Are there traditional platformers about puzzle-solving and patience?
  • "The game's settings include", why is the same reference in the middle of the sentence?
  • "Anthropomorphized" should be "anthropomorphic". No one has said it: the alternative text is worth reading.
  • The screenshots of gameplay are very nice, but why are they relevant? Why not the screenshots 2 or 3? If they are all relevant, the screenshots for the article could be automatically selected depending on the current day. (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps[edit]

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

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

FAC Coordinator's Comments

  • I am not satisfied that a consensus has been reached that the FA criteria have been met. The source review seems superficial. For example, what makes this [29] a reliable source? And this [30]? From a superficial reading I see that the prose remains below FA standard (see for example "Fez's development cycle developed a reputation for its protracted five-year length and public exposure." Where we have "development" and "developed" with just one word separating them). I can't speak for my colleague Ian, but the prospects for the promotion of this candidate are not looking good at this stage, and I will not be promoting this until I have seen more thorough reviews that address all the FA criteria. At the moment I would be embarrassed to see this on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • GrahamColm, I myself am not well versed in their editorial policies, but both sites are classed as reliable by the Video games project per WP:VG/RS. Tezero (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
"Embarrassed" is, I hope, an exaggeration. As for the sources, they should all meet WP:VG/RS vetted standards. If you have any more specific concerns about the prose or anything else, I'm happy to address it. Prose quality hasn't been an issue for me before. czar  02:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with GrahamColm about the prose quality. I noticed it myself after looking at the article soon after the nom: rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness. Similar problems dogged Mischief Makers a few months ago. Initially, I decided to hold off on my review until other editors had made significant comments on the prose (which did not happen), and then, after the FU3 controversy, I delayed further to avoid potential awkwardness. My Wikipedia time currently is spent scanning materials for Red Phoenix and his Dreamcast project, so I don't have time to prose review such a long article. But I can say that it needs a thorough working-over by at least one outside copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, I'm very surprised to hear you say that. I gave it another read and rephrased any part I felt you may have been referencing, but I felt that even those changes were minor. I'd be interested to see a few examples of where y'all think the prose is falling short of 1a professional brilliance. czar  00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the lead alone:
  • "developed by indie developer" — "Developed" and "developer" twice in four words.
  • "It is a 2D game set in a 3D world: the two-dimensional player-character receives a fez that tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension." — "2D" and "3D" inexplicably introduced before "two-dimensional" and "three-dimensional", plus "tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension" is vague and in-universey.
  • "are built around the core mechanic" — If they're "built around" it, then we already know that the mechanic is important, so "core" is redundant.
  • "rotating between four 2D views of a 3D space—as four sides around a cube—where the environment realigns between views to create new paths." — Even as someone who has seen the game in action, I find this description hard to follow. What could "four 2D views of a 3D space" mean? The hyphenated section doesn't make it clearer. And "the environment realigns between views to create new paths" is extremely vague. What does "between views" mean? What is "the environment" in this case? What does it mean for the environment to "realign"—was it ever not aligned? What does the phrase "new paths" mean, and why are these paths important?
Like I said, I don't have time to prose review an article of this length—particularly when the prose issues appear to be more than superficial. It needs at least one outside copyeditor (possibly two) to give it a spitshine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I know you don't have the time for a full review, but how would you put those four instances, at least? If you played the game, I think you'd appreciate how the "core mechanic" is known for being notoriously difficult to explain in prose, nevertheless in a single sentence. The other parts seem more like personal preference than "rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness" to me. czar  05:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been around 77% done with the game for a while (I got stuck and just didn't feel like walkthrough-ing it - Thomas Was Alone was my real gem from that Humble Bundle) and I agree - it's something that pervades nearly every design choice made in the game and yet it's tough to pin down. I'd like to think we could speed-recruit a couple WP:VG copyeditors before this FAC closes, but honestly since no one's gotten back about those questionable Sonic X sources even after I summarized the facts of each one, one can't be too optimistic. Some of these complaints are borderline unactionable, moreover. Tezero (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
They aren't unactionable in the slightest. I'm aware that Fez's gameplay is hard to summarize, but that doesn't mean that 1a can be bypassed. @Czar: I see that you've worked on the sentences I mentioned. While it's an improvement, the gameplay discussion is still confusing—and it shows, again, that the article needs fresh eyes. I'll provide rewrite suggestions (and these are only suggestions) for the final two sentences:
  • "Protagonist Gomez lives on a two-dimensional (2D) plane until he receives a magical fez, which reveals that his world has a third dimension. Controlling Gomez, the player navigates a 2D environment that may be rotated left or right to remove obstacles and solve puzzles."
Take or leave my choices: I only meant to show that these sentences could be phrased in a clearer and more concise way. Grab a copyeditor or two for the rest of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your view of the prose, but your opinion is noted czar  01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
...Screw it, we can still try. I've let WP:VG know. Tezero (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I entered this to support Graham Colm's statement, which you had essentially brushed off. Brush off my feedback as well, if you like—but the nomination gets an oppose from me in its current state. I leave it to the coordinators to decide if the opposition is warranted. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

  • For starters, the lead's opening paragraph doesn't mention the fez or the protagonist, which leaves the discussion of Fez's gameplay ungrounded. These two elements were in the prose when I first read the article, but they have been removed for some reason. I recommend re-adding them.
  • "a game mechanic where" — "Where" is a strange word here: is a game mechanic a place? "Wherein" or "in which" would be preferable.
  • "the viewable two-dimensional world 90 degrees left or right about four sides of a cube" — Three points. First, what is the difference between the "viewable two-dimensional world" and the two-dimensional world? Second, why is it necessary to mention the degree at which the cube turns, given that we already know its number of sides? Third, replacing "about" with "around" would increase clarity.
  • "the three-dimensional environment" — What is the three-dimensional environment?
  • "the two-dimensional levels" — This can (and should) be abbreviated to 2D for easier reading—just be sure to introduce the abbreviation in parentheses after the first mention of "two-dimensional".
  • "The objects in ... The object of" — Two sentences in a row begin with "the object".
  • "cube fragments" — What is a cube fragment?
  • "which included Fez's" —> "which documented Fez's".
  • A rewrite suggestion:
  • "Fez was first released on as a yearlong Xbox Live Arcade to critical acclaim exclusive on April 13, 2012, to critical acclaim, and was later ported to other platforms." (Italics signify an addition.)
  • The final paragraph of the lead mostly rattles off awards—tedious reading, even in an article body. The award information should be slimmed down and generalized, and other material (perhaps related to its critical reception) should be put in its place.
  • "canceled as Fish" —> "canceled when Fish".
  • "Fez is a two-dimensional platform game set in a three-dimensional world." — Introduce the abbreviations 2D and 3D after the long-form versions here, since you use those abbreviations later.
  • "a peaceful, two-dimensional life" — What is a two-dimensional life?
  • "giant golden hexahedron splinter" — What is a hexahedron splinter? Also, it should be "giant, golden".
  • "viewable 2D world" — Again, what is the difference between the 2D world and the "viewable 2D world"?
  • "about four sides" —> "around four sides".
  • "3D cube-like" —> "3D, cube-like".
  • "Fez's puzzles are built around how" — A little shoddy. Perhaps, "Fez's puzzles involve using" or "Fez's puzzles require the player to use". Just make sure to change the later part of the sentence to "rotation mechanic to reveals new paths and connects".
  • "forest platforms are tree branches and factory platforms include pistons" — Why is it necessary to mention the various visual themes of platforms? Even if it is, the idea of a "forest platform" (or "factory platform") won't make sense to a non-gamer, and should be replaced with "platforms in a forest" (or other location).
  • "crates that activate switches, bombs that reveal passages, platforms that collapse, and climbable ivy." — Why is it necessary to list all of these? Surely at least one or two could be removed (particularly "climbable ivy") with no loss in clarity for the average reader.
  • "hidden warp gates, enigmatic obelisks, Tetris tetrominos, invisible platforms, puns, pixelated hieroglyphics, a decipherable alphabet, QR codes, treasure maps, and treasure chests with keys and artifacts that factor into later puzzles." — Again, why the extensive list? It seems to border on WP:GAMECRUFT.
  • As an aside, the Gameplay section contains no actual examples of puzzles in Fez. Definitely an oversight to correct: without an example, all the talk of "puzzles" has no meaning to someone unacquainted with the game.
  • "The game does not depend on item collection and an inventory, but vague hints." — What does it mean for a game to "depend on item collection and an inventory", and how can a game depend on "vague hints"? I'm lost.
  • "Its puzzles can be solved soon after their discovery." — That seems to be the nature of puzzles in general. Why is this relevant?
  • "Fez presents false signals alongside decipherable codes that the player can either choose to interpret or ignore." — Is a "false signal" disinformation or a red herring? What is the purpose of "decipherable codes"?
  • "One of the game's recurring themes is an ancient civilization that attempted to make sense of their dimension." — If this is the 2D/3D dimension, it should be clarified.
  • The Fish quote in Gameplay refers to "Trixels", which are not introduced until the Development section. It should be moved down (or removed from the article) to prevent confusion.
  • "traditional platforming dexterity" — What is "traditional" about it?
  • "that harkens back to" — Informal phrase. Perhaps "in reference to games from".
  • "Its homage includes Tetris tetrominos inscribed on the walls and in the sky, The Legend of Zelda treasure chest animations, Super Mario Bros. mushroom levels, travel by pipe, and floating platforms. It also features Nintendo Entertainment System-style sound effects, the navigational aide Dot (who says, "Hey! Listen!"), and sewer levels presented in the style of a Game Boy display." — More gamecruft, including a second (unnecessary) mention of Tetris tetrominos.
  • "alleyways with neon signs" — Why is this necessary to mention?
  • "Fez's New Game Plus mode imports previous game progress as Gomez collects "anti-cubes" for the harder puzzles towards the 64-cube goal, and adds another perspective-based feature." — The grammar of the pre-comma segment breaks down at "progress as Gomez", and "for the harder puzzles towards the 64-cube goal" is impenetrable to me. And what is this "perspective-based feature"?

That's it for now. It's a very pretty article—excellent work securing all of this free media. Prose definitely needs work, but it shouldn't be too much trouble to clean up. I'll be back tomorrow with more of my review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing, part 2
  • "While Fez was released to wide acclaim, Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." — Why is this in the opening paragraph of the Development section, or indeed in that section at all? It would make more sense in Reception. Further, why contrast ("while") Fez's acclaim with Fish's persona, given that nothing negative is said about the latter?
  • A sentence rewrite:
  • "The game that became Fez's development began when as Montreal-based Phil Fish in Montreal and Toronto-based Shawn McGrath in Toronto collaborated on a puzzle game, envisioned by McGrath's idea for a puzzle game based, in which a 3D space was viewed from multiple 2D angles on 2D views of a 3D space."
  • "lore" — It's very informal to apply this word to a work of fiction. Try "setting" or "backstory".
  • "Fez was first ... Fez was nominated" — Two sentences in a row begin with "Fez was".
  • "and when Fish" — "and, when Fish".
  • I don't understand what the IGF and GDC awards have to do with Fish's exit from mainstream game development. Perhaps break that single sentence into two.
  • "The game won 'Excellence in Visual Art', and created a surge of public interest in Fez" — Grammatically, this means that Fez created a surge of public interest in Fez. Perhaps "which created" instead of "and created".
  • "concurrent to a similar swell of interest in indie game developers" — What does this mean?
  • "with a more experimental ethos" — I have no idea what this means. More experimental than what? And what is an experimental ethos?
  • "considered canceling the project when the nearby Québécois developer-publisher Trapdoor offered to help." — This means that Trapdoor's offer led Fish to consider canceling the project. Does that represent the sources or is it a grammatical error?
  • "partnership rescued the game" — Partnership with his friends and family or with Trapdoor, or both?
  • "the earlier PAX East 2011" — I don't understand what this means. How does it relate to the PAX 2011 already described?
  • A rewrite:
  • "The film chronicles the stories of follows the production of games by several indie developers at various stages of their games' development cycles."
  • "jeopardizes the game's future" — "The game" should be clarified as "Fez", since discussion of other indie projects has just taken place.
  • "exacerbates his outspoken public perception" — "Exacerbate" means "to make worse". Is that in line with the source? Further, what is an "outspoken public perception"?
  • "the part where" — "the moment when".
  • "end of development" —> "end of Fez's development".
  • "Independent Games Festival Chairman" — You already mentioned and linked IGF earlier. Axe the link and abbreviate to IGF for easier reading—just be sure to introduce the abbreviation first.
  • "Jonathan Blow, and that he" — I don't understand how his burnout is causally related to the positive feedback, so perhaps replace "and that" with "but that".
  • "and sold" —> "and it sold".
  • "their co-publisher" — Who is "they"?
  • "its release" — The release of Microsoft, "they", the XBLA platform or the game? It's not clear.
  • "PC" — "PC" is a casual term best replaced with a concrete operating system. Apply this principle to all uses of "PC" in the article.
  • "their long development cycle" — Who is "they"?
  • "turns 2D tiles ("triles") into sides of a 3D cube pixel" — This is hard to follow. Perhaps just scrap the talk of "3D cube pixels" and use the technical word (voxel) with a wikilink. I would recommend this rewrite: "uses 2D tiles ("triles") as texture maps on the sides of voxels".
  • "each tiled side of the 3D trixel, which Bédard's custom software compiled into 3D trixels" — I have absolutely no idea what this means.
  • "'overwhelming', but" —> "'overwelming' but".
  • "philosophy, where" — A philosophy is not a place, so this should be "wherein" or "in which".
  • "its code never contained an antagonist" — Why "its code"? This is not really a programming issue. Perhaps "its design".
  • "while borrowing its sounds" — What is "it"?
  • "portions of Fez game" — Should be "portions of Fez" or "portions of the game".
  • "its sound effects" — What is "it"?
  • "and based the" —> "and he based the".
  • "Fez's pre-2010 music ideas" — Which are?
  • "its sound qualities" — What is "it"?
  • "decided against it" — What is "it"?
  • "called the work" — Which work?
  • "Game Informer's Miller" — Should be a full name.
  • "He later released" — Who is "he"?
  • "ahead of high-budget games like Black Ops 2 and Halo 4." — Is this original research, or does the source explicitly point out that Fez beat triple-A games?
  • "developer Jason Rohrer" —> "developer Jason Rohrer's", since he isn't connected to Warner.
  • "its minimalism" — What is "it"?
  • "likened its art style to Cave Story" — Unless they likened the art style to Cave Story as a whole, this should be "likened its art style to that of Cave Story".
  • "its nostalgic manner" — What is "it"?
  • A rewrite:
  • "Oli Welsh of Eurogamer lamented how that 'retro pixel art' became an indie game cliché during the length of the game's development, but he believed that Fez stood out from saw a departure from other indie game the stereotypes of its peers. He noted that the game was dedicated alongside the game's dedication to the wonderment of early Nintendo titles, noting, and that 'Fish clearly worships the Nintendo of his boyhood'."
  • "Welsh described Fez as Shigeru Miyamoto's peace-loving 1970s surrealist 2001: A Space Odyssey" — What does that mean?
  • "Edge described it" — What is "it"?
  • "Echochrome did it better, among others" —> "Echochrome and other games used the technique more effectively".
  • "potential best of the bunch" — There's a missing word here, or perhaps just a grammatical error. It needs to be fixed, either way.
  • "Escher-heavy" — What does it mean to be "Escher-heavy"?
  • "Welsh compared its" — What is "it"?
  • "to 80s game" —> "to the 80s game".
  • "They also came to" — Who is "they"?
  • "Polygon's Gies described his uncertainty about the intentionality of technical frame rate issues as having a 'certain genius'." — I'm baffled by this sentence. What does it mean?
  • "year, and after the Humble Bundle" —> "year, and, after the Humble Bundle".

That should do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @JimmyBlackwing. I believe I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. czar  04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Support: Very, very nice article. Structure and coverage are solid, and it's one of the prettiest VG FACs I've ever seen. Prose has improved dramatically since my first comment. (Hopefully the few wording tweaks I made weren't against the sources.) WPVG will be lucky to have an FA this good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Caesar Hull[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

Comments: Just a few issues to be cleared up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source check

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

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

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

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

Comments by LuciferMorgan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

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

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

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

Comments by SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Support looks much better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Spike Wilbury[edit]

Tentative Support pending a few items I'd like to see addressed as follows:

  • In the lead you mention it was released as a vinyl disc, but surely that wasn't the only format? It's a bit confusing because you mention vinyl in the lead, and the next mention of format is of a CD single in the Production section. I can't find any other mention of the release formats.
I've mentioned it in the article's body as well. The point in the lead was to notify that the album was released on two discs after being initially released on one. The singles are not necessarily connected with this sentence.
  • "...And Justice for All was Metallica's first studio album to feature bassist Jason Newsted after the death of Cliff Burton in 1986." I think the "studio album" vs EP lingo might confuse or escape some people. Do you think it would be more reader-friendly to write "first full-length studio album" or something similar so they don't get to the next sentence and think, "Isn't an EP a studio album?"
Agree. Even I was confused by this terminology when I started editing Wikipedia, and it could be not quite understandable for readers that aren't much into music. Fixed, regardless.
  • "Rasmussen was initially unavailable for the planned start at January 1, 1988" Can we write "on January 1, 1988"? Sounds more natural, I think.
  • "But things did not work out as planned, and three weeks later Rasmussen became available after Ulrich gave him a call." I think you could lose the leading "but" and still have the same meaning.
Corrected per suggestion.
  • The Music section is really good; I think you capture the important things about the composition and such. The sections on Newsted's contributions are quite interesting to me as I've listened the album many times and always wondered why the bass is so lost in the mix. I'm listening to "One" right now and you would never think they even recorded a bass part.
Thanks for the kind words. Despite the sound omissions, I still think it captures Metallica at their best.
  • "McIver noted that the band's main lyricist, James Hetfield, wrote about topics that he has not addressed before, such as his revolt against The Establishment." Maybe "had not addressed before"?
Also fixed.
  • Track Listing... what's the deal with the collapsible boxes? Is that a thing now? I don't like them.
All I know is that there were few discussion about whether the bonus track should be hidden or not, but honestly, I haven't paid much attention to that debate. It's the same to me, so if you suggest un-hiding the extra tracks, will do.

Good job. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • One other comment I noticed while going through the article again: "During the World Magnetic Tour in 2009, 'The Shortest Straw' made its way back into the setlist after a 12-year absence, and has subsequently become a permanent fixture in the band's setlist." The "permanent fixture" statement doesn't seem to be present in the cited source. What is your source for that? I'm also wary of making statements like this because if they ever drop it from the set list, someone has to remember to go update this. In fact, I looked up a random set list of theirs from 2012 and "The Shortest Straw" isn't on it. It can't very well be a "permanent fixture" in that case. How do you feel about rewriting that section a bit so it doesn't require so much ongoing attention? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I usually use as a starting point for information like that (check number 61). The song was sporadically performed from 2009 onward, so agree, it's definitely not a set-fixture. As for these live performances statistics, I remember that some IP user updated information the very next day after Metallica debuted "The Frayed Ends of Sanity" in May this year. This is highly visited article, so incorporating coverage about live performances won't be an issue, I believe.--Retrohead (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nergal[edit]

  • Conditional support pending finishing the suggestions from other reviewers. Compositionally the article looks great. I was a bit surprised so see a lack of image. The ones that come to mind are: Burotn, Newstead, Ulrich, and a better zoom of the 4 of them than the pic at the bottom (from the 2000s?). Also, I think that you should cover the list of video albums where the songs were featured, especially the Metallica Through the Never. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Nergaal. The lack of images is because Commons doesn't have illustrations from the period the album was released, and partially because I'm not knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policy for uploading non-free content. The picture form the 'Live performances' is from 1989, but since I'm not computer savvy, I can't crop it for a closer view.--Retrohead (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Stroma, Scotland[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

3) Later in that paragraph is the following sentence:

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

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

5) In this sentence:

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

6) In this sentence:

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

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

8) In that same sentence,

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

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

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

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

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

11) In the following sentence:

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

12) In the following sentence:

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

13) In the following sentence:

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

14) Regarding this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

17) The very next sentence is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

  • All done - thanks for the further comments. Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Ben MacDui
I think this is a fine article. I am very pressed for time right now and not 100% up-to-speed on FAC protocols. I am assuming that as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands its not OK for me to offer a formal opinion. If that's not the case, pls alert me.
  • Don't worry, it's absolutely fine to offer a formal opinion. Being a member of the WikiProject doesn't disqualify you. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

:Not everyone will agree, but Orkney Islands is a redirect becase the name of the archipelago is 'Orkney' and I would prefer 'islands of Orkney' or similar. Ditto under 19th century.

  • It's a fair point - fixed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'The heavily indented coastline has a circumference of about 7 miles (11 km),[9] indented by numerous geos' uses indented twice.
  • Changed the second "indented" to "punctuated". Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'A partially collapsed sea cave called the Gloup' if it is called 'the Gloup' should the T not be capitalised? Haswell-Smith does so.
  • Well spotted, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The flora and fauna section seems a little sparse to me. I imagine there is little or nothing that is specific to the island but a few species of local flora and maybe an estimate of bird/seal numbers woudl not go amiss (if they are available).
  • I don't have that info, I'm afraid - I've looked for it. Perhaps the island is too obscure to have been documented in that level of detail? Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
See JNCC and HC for some detail that could be added about the locality, including Stroma. See also this pdf and SNH. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've managed to wring a bit more info out of those sources. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
'The settlements originally belonged to two different estates: the Freswick estate owned Nethertown and the Mey estate owned Uppertown' - this reads slightly clumsily to me and I suspect that finding a way to amalgamate it with the previous sentence might help to avoid using 'estate' three times in one sentence.
  • Good point, I've reworded it. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'Panoramic view of the north of Stroma, with Orkney in the distance. The Mains of Stroma, the houses of Nethertown and the top of the lighthouse can be seen.' In my view the 'The' before 'Mains' is redundant, in Scottish English at least.
  • Thanks, changed. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
'The population reached a peak of 375 people' - 'people' is redundant.
  • It could have meant sheep. ;-) But that's a good point, I've changed it. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
' (also known as "the Robber's Castle") ' - surley either the "Robber's Castle", or "The Robber's Castle"?
  • It's verbatim from the source, so I didn't feel I should change it... Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to know where the 'the fatal wounding of John Forbes of Watertown' took place.
  • See here. I've not found a reliable source for it though. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Might be worthy of a Note stating that this took place in the vicinity of Ellon Castle in Aberdeenshire. If you need another ref, its Coventry, Martin (2008) Castles of the Clans. Musselburgh. Goblinshead. ISBN 9781899874361, p 304. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a page number for that reference? Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's there, after the ISBN.
D'oh! How embarrassing that I missed that. I've added it now - thanks for looking it up. Prioryman (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you can be forgiven - I know how wearying this process can be. Ben MacDui 19:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

:Rev George Low seems to lack a period after 'Rev'.

'in January–February 1937' repeats the year - could be 'in January–February of that year'.
'While smuggling may have been suppressed, ' repeats 'suppressed' from the prev. sentence.
  • Changed to "tackled". Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest that you use "dealt with" (or "resolved") instead of "tackled"? "Tackled" leaves open the possibility that the problem was not resolved. "Dealt with" suggests that the problem was resolved. CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I chose "tackled" because the smuggling issue clearly wasn't resolved. If you read on you'll see an account of smuggling wrecked goods from the 20th century - it was pretty clearly an endemic practice. Prioryman (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
'She hed all her wits boot her.' It's an uncommon dilaect but I just wanted to check it should not be 'aboot' which would be a more common usage.
Wick and Thurso can be linked.
Can we link 'Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society shop'?
  • To what? I don't think we have an article on it, do we? Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I see now that Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society is only a redirect, although the main article does mention it. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
'I see Stroma was sold last week, and it's not sold this week' This is odd - can you check it's a verbatim quote?
  • Yes, it's verbatim. He's saying that he heard that Stroma had been sold last week but found this week that it hadn't been. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You might add an explanatory Note as this reads oddly without the context. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, done. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about Caithness CC as a red link - hard to see anyone not just adding material to Caithness.
  • Fair point, delinked. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think it appropriate, Geology of Orkney could be a 'See also'. You might also consider adding Mingulay and St Kilda as islands with similar histories, although I accept there are numerous other examples.
  • I've linked the islands. Thanks for your suggestions! Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Apologies to Prioryman for my slow response time. Hoping to provide a full reply tomorrow. Ben MacDui 16:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
A few comments added above. I'd be happy to support this subejct to a little more detail on the wildlife front being added. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ben Macdui: Thanks, I've tackled the comments you added. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Ben MacDui 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a full review, a question: the lead suggests that the "last inhabitants left only as recently as 1997." But the body states that it was 1962. This is confusing. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 17:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is confusing and suggest making the latter part of the lead "From an all-time peak of 375 people in 1901, the population fell to just 12 by 1961 and, save for the lighthouse keepers and their families, the last islanders left at the end of the following year." Ben MacDui 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reworded this as: "From an all-time peak of 375 people in 1901, the population fell to just 12 by 1961. The last native islanders left at the end of the following year, while the island's final abandonment came in 1997 when the lighthouse keepers and their families departed." Prioryman (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1850 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support now.

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

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

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

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

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

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

  • I can't understand the first sentence.
It's saying that Briarcliff is a suburban village in Westchester County, NY and is less than 30 miles north of NYC. Can you be more specific what your issue is with the sentence?--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It says: "Briarcliff Manor's original settlement was known as Whitson's Corners". I don't get the original settlement thing? What is it? I think you should rephrase that, ɱ URDNEXT (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If I reword that as "Briarcliff Manor's settlement was originally known as...", that would be okay?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the word settlement is a bit, I don't know... Weird. I think if you used an alternative it would be easier to understand. URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the area may have had other names when it was native American land or when there were a few farms in the area, but the first proper settlement was named Whitson's Corners. I think it's alright.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The neighboring community of Scarborough was known as Weskora until renamed in 1864." How about Weskora "until" it was renamed in 1864?
So, you want to add in "it was"? That's fine with me, although it's unnecessary wording.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really. It makes the prose flow better. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Miniapolis suggested it too, and it's minor.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Soon afterward, that sign was thrown into the Hudson River and replaced with the original Scarborough sign" Is there a reason for this to happen? I think it would be a good thing to cover.
Yeah, it's generally attributed to the fact that Scarborough residents generally wanted to feel less like they were like just another part of Briarcliff; they like to be identified as residents of Scarborough.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Put this in the article and my issue is solved. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, but it's not very factual and not very well supported by reliable sources. I'll see what I can put in.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, done.--ɱ (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "after the family home in Ireland" You mean "his" family home?
That should make it more clear; done.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Progressive era to present day[edit]
  • {{He bought his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890,[1] and rapidly added to his property}} I can't understand this sentence. If these were his first acres, how did he already have property there?
He didn't already have property there, the 236 acres were his first. Perhaps the wording suggests that he bought land before that? It's unlikely I can make it any clearer.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a wording conflict in this sentence. You said something then you contradicted it. You started saying he bought his first acres, which added to his property. Try this:
"He purchased his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890, and then quickly expanded his property..." URDNEXT (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The part about rapidly adding relates to the 40 parcels, not the 236 acres, but I see how you're confused. Should I reword it to be more clear?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try something.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Will be back for more! URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I replied to your comments so far. Thanks for helping out.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It was my pleasure, ɱ! Now do me a favor, and take this to FA no matter what. I'm here to help! URDNEXT (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "The Briarcliff Manor Police Department and the volunteer Briarcliff Manor Fire Department are stationed at the Briarcliff Manor Village Hall" is not the best introduction to Infrastructure. Perhabs you could start the section with, "Briacliff Manor has a large infrastructure with several..." Giving this introduction sets up the scene for the readers as the current one kinda comes out of nowhere.
I don't know if every paragraph needs some sort of guidebook-type introduction. It really wouldn't add anything here, doesn't seem very professional, and this is all especially true for such a short section. Also, Briarcliff Manor doesn't have a large infrastructure, because it's a small village.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "thirty vehicles and employs twenty-nine men" Again, nothing totally wrong with this, just that the use of "men" could be replaced with "people" or "workers".
done.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to the National Bridge Inventory, Briarcliff Manor has 15 bridges, with estimated daily traffic at 204,000 vehicles" You should change "at" to "of".
Well, then I'd have to word it as "15 bridges, which have an estimated daily traffic volume of 204,000 vehicles", which is much more lengthy. The current text conveys the same information more concisely.--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "existing road is Washburn Road, on which is the 1767 Century Homestead" Didn't understand this at all.
Miniapolis reworded a lot for conciseness, and perhaps she made this one a bit too concise. The oldest road in the village is Washburn Rd., and on it is the house named Century Homestead, which I talk about earlier in the article's text. I just changed the wording a bit, is that good?--ɱ (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Also, just a reminder of the Sleeping Dogs thing, in case you forgot. I'll be making more comments here as I read the article more, though I'm afraid the article is already in such good shape that any criticism would be nitpicking. @ URDNEXT (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Likely won't be editing at all today, gotta restrict myself in order to actually get real-life things done...--ɱ (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@ I hope that didn't come off like blackmail. I meant to say that I'll be making comments as I find errors and things that could be improved in the article, not that I'll only make comments if you help me. Just saying this in case my previous comment came off wrong. URDNEXT (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I know you well enough by now to know that. You've always been very helpful and friendly.--ɱ (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments by Miniapolis[edit]

My review focuses primarily on the prose.

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

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

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

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

Miniapolis, for such a long article, I'd assume that there would be minor problems that we'd have to dig to find. I have already had a number of people review it and OK it. A peer review wouldn't give me that much more. You should read my further comments to Ian Rose (here), who agreed with me and was willing to allow me to immediately reopen the FA review. With regard to neutrality, I would like you to cite examples. I believe that all facts are neutral, factual, and encyclopedic. The village has not published or commissioned many of my sources; quite a number of them come from the independent Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, which is a professional and respected organization for research. With regard to a "numbing amount of detail", this is an online encyclopedia. There is no limit on the amount of detail we can go into. The only real issue with great detail is it increases page size, which can be fixed other ways. Readers and Wikipedians generally want the most detail possible in such specific articles.--ɱ (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
By far my largest source was The Changing Landscape, an independently-published and independently-written 300-page volume detailing village history and other aspects. It makes no attempts to be promotional.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Miniapolis: As well, if you read Ian Rose's talk page, it better details that he suggested a peer review not based on the article's quality, but based on the fact that it might garner the attention of more editors. He didn't fail it for any lack of quality, merely for only one review in the month-long period, and no responses for a week after that.--ɱ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments are based on the article, which is little changed (except for some apparent reverts) from when I copyedited it at your request as a userspace draft several months ago. Pinging individuals to look over an article (what you seem to consider "peer review") is very different from a formal process by disinterested editors. Due to the recent influx of paid editors on WP attempting to "spin" articles for clients, I'm sensitive to POV. I'm requesting a source review due to possible plagiarism issues, since I found verbatim copy with inadequate attribution (with a footnote, but without quotation marks) accidentally while checking a source during the copyedit. A formal peer review would address issues such as these, but I see haste in trying to get this article to FA. Miniapolis 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're overstating that paraphrasing issue, and that was an odd case very early on in this article's development. I'm surprised you don't notice more changes; I've rewritten entire sections, added many images and quite a lot of content, and done quite a bit of formatting since you last reviewed it. I would say it has dramatically changed since you last reviewed it. I am very familiar with the PR process, and I should let you know that of the many that have reviewed the article and draft, none of them had any relation to the content. Most of them made a note to tell me that they