Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Nativity (Christus)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review

  • File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_(c._1460s)_detail.jpg, File:Petrus_Christus_Nativity_detail.jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman[edit]

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

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

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Comment Leaning support. A few comments.

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

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

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

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

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

Typhoon Chanchu[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Australian raven[edit]

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

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

Comments from Jim[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Corvus_coronoides_map.jpg: source for base map and data used? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Masked shrike[edit]

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

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

Media check - all OK (CC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan[edit]

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

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

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

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

Jack Crawford (cricketer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jhall1 and Sarastro1 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a rather arrogant but massively talented cricketer who had a dispute with the authorities and dropped out of the England team. Not KP, but Jack Crawford who played in the first two decades of the 20th century. A somewhat forgotten story but an interesting one. This article has been undergoing work for a long time now. Jhall1 and I have been picking at it for the best part of 3 years. It first reached GA in 2011 but the availability of some more information prompted some expansion, and it has had a talk-page review from some very talented editors. Any further comments are more than welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I didn't actually put this one in. I've switched back to one for which I know a little more. How's that one? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's definitely PD, at least in the US. I wouldn't have uploaded the full resolution if I had doubts. I'll update the information page if you're not sure about the book. We can go with "Unknown" for the creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That new image is okay copyright wise, but the old one was clearer. Do you want me to clean up the source information on that one, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot this. I'd be grateful if you could do that! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, how's this look? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks good, thanks! Switched back to that now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Everything else is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Just that one image nit pick to deal with, and that's essentially done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian Great article for which I constituted part of the recent informal peer review. Just had another look through and just a few nitpicks stick out, none of which affect my support.

  • "When the dispute arose, he sent a telegram" Who? Crawford or Trumper? (I guess the former but just to be sure)
  • Did the rumours about becoming a farmer say he was going to become a rancher in Australia or go back to England to do it? (or elsewhere?)
  • Unknown, unfortunately. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • When we say both marriages seem to have been childless it may be good to qualify this by saying according to whom they seem to be so (Hart?)
  • We refer in the last section to an "eight-year absence" from English cricket, but wasn't he actually absent for ten years?
  • Took out "eight-year". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done again Sarastro and Jhall1. Very enjoyable, engaging piece on a man I had never heard of. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged for all your help. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Support – from another participant in the recent ad hoc review. It was clearly a fine article then and has been further refined as a result of reviewers' comments. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources review:

  • Page range formats should be standardised (e.g. compare ref 6 with ref 35 and others)
  • ISBNs: The 1988 Benny Green book has ISBN 978-0-71262-080-2. For the Wynne-Thomas book it's 978-0-60055-782-1

Otherwise, all sources look appropriate and reliable, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Got these, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support subject to minor source format fixes. I was one of the "talented" editors who gave this a recent talkpage review, having first reviewed it three years ago at an earlier stage in its development. The article is now in good shape and I'm happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and your earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – As one of the talk page reviewers I'm not sure "talented" is the right word for me, but I see no further problems with the article worth commenting on; in fact, there were few to begin with. Nice to see this editor back producing quality articles for FAC to look at. I trust that the needed source tweaks will be made and will not let them stop me from supporting the article, which is a fine piece of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and your earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just how powerful was Lord Alverstone?:

  • One thing has been niggling at me for a couple of days. At one point we say about Lord Alverstone: "Starting in 1909, he left out several professionals." As not only the president of the club but also the Lord Chief Justice, he was obviously very influential, but did he have quite the dictatorial powers that this unqualified statement would imply? I know it's properly cited and comes from one of the sources. But later on, we say: "Alverstone wrote to Crawford that the Surrey committee fully supported Leveson Gower's decision to omit Rushby and Lees." OK, this specific case doesn't necessarily disprove the earlier statement, but it does suggest that Alverstone couldn't run the club as a one-man band and had to take some notice of the committee and club captain (and since Leveson Gower was an England selector he will have had a fair amount of clout himself), and possibly of the secretary too. JH (talk page) 17:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've toned this down a touch to make it less clear who was pulling the strings, as I think you are probably right. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. it is well-referenced and it meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited most of this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Léal Souvenir[edit]

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

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

Image review

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


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

Prose comments (Crisco 1492)

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

Comment and image review by Adam Cuerden[edit]

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

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

As for the images:

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

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

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • wanna hyphen in "inward looking" and "vertically cut"?
  • Today its varnish is severely degraded - "today" redundant here
  • link Infrared photography somehwere
  • link bourrelet and cornette too
  • Descriptors for Panofsky and Danens at first mention

Olympic marmot[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

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

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

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

  • "They enter hibernation in September, during which time they are in a deep sleep and do not eat" - "hibernation" is not a time but a state of inactivity.
    • Done. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The significant difference of the Olympic marmot's jawbone from the typical Petramarmota is also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range with a small population. - I'm unclear what this sentence means.
    • Clarified. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about the colour of adults. You mention various moults and various colours but I struggle to follow what colour the animal is at different ages and times of year.
  • The two parts of the sentence starting "In the fall" are mutually inconsistent. If the colour change is the result of a moult, the colour is unlikely to further fade after surfacing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Think I clarified this. —innotata 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Olympic marmots are folivorous (leaf-eaters) ..." - If they are folivores, should not their diet consist entirely of leaves?
    • Leaves are clearly stated to be the main part of their diet. Typically when people say an animal is an x-vore they don't mean it never eats anything else. I'll address the rest of the comments later. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Passing thought - If they emerge from hibernation in May, mate 10 to 20 days later and gestate for a month the pups are born in about late June. They are weaned 10 weeks later which brings us to early September, just about time for them to start hibernating. How can the pups have built up enough body reserves in this time to survive a nine month period without food?
  • Since writing the last comment I have read the Edelman source, #2, and see that the reproductive cycle is not as stated in the article, but is 10 weeks from mating to weaning and the juveniles enter into hibernation later than the adults. The National Park Service source, #12, to which some of this part of the article is referenced, is inaccessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • At the moment I am tending to oppose this candidacy. Looking specifically at the Description and Feeding sections I see too many instances of the article text not correctly summarising the source text. Here are some examples but there are many more and I think the article should be gone through carefully comparing its content to its sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The middle paragraph of the description section is confusing and still does not reflect the source in connection with the second moult. The part about the adult coat should be rewritten in a more coherent fashion. The final paragraph of the section needs to be consistent with the middle one.
  • The use of the word "folivorous". Neither source uses with this word and one of the sources states "The inflorescences and upper 6-10 cm of new growth are typically eaten." A folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves and this marmot does not.
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #12 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg. " Marmots have a sharp, piercing whistle that warns others of intruders or potential predators, and notifies hikers that they are in marmot territory." has become "... in order both to alert other marmots and to tell the hiker that he or she is in the marmots' territory." The emphasized phrase is not the purpose of the call.)
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #20 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg "... a longer growing season may allow marmots to grow more quickly, mature earlier, and breed more often" has become "... a longer growing season in which marmots could grow quickly and mature earlier, and thus breed more frequently throughout the year.")
  • Uses of the Edelman source at #2 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg The article states: "Olympic marmots also communicate through the sense of smell to mark their territory. A gland located in their cheek exudes chemicals which they rub on scenting points, such as shrubs and rocks, to indicate possession." This is not borne out by the source, in fact, as per this source, these marmots are not territorial within the colony, and the scent markings are social in nature.)

Trey Burke[edit]

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

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


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

Typhoon Karen[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lafayette dollar[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Source review Just a couple of quick thoughts/comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 Sylvania 300[edit]

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

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

William Wurtenburg[edit]

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

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

Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

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

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

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

Spokane, Washington[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Image review

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

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

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

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

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

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

  • Can I clarify: current literature recognises multiple species, is that correct? At least 3 and possibly as many as 7? It is hard to be clear from that section what the current view(s) are.
Four species. This is specifically mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph under Species and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see an explanation or link for the reader to explain the Christian cross-shaped symbol used in the infobox. What is its significance?
(Animalparty responding) The dagger symbol (not a Christian cross) is a widely used symbol in biology and paleontology to indicate extinct taxa. Some articles have the dagger wikilinked to extinction, or have an HTML code that says "extinct" when a pointer hovers over it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It is extinction. It has been added to most articles about extinct animals, so it is a wider issue that I have little to no control over. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess what I meant to say is, this should be explained and/or linked for readers. I've fixed that with a note in the box. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
They used to be links, it seems the template has been altered. It should be relinked, then a note will be redundant. I'll see if I can fix it. See also this discussion: Also see here[1], where I've proposed the dagger should be a link. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Like User:Animalparty, I don't believe the article should begin with taxonomy. I don't believe any article about a thing should start with anything other than a description of that thing, a view I have expressed in the past at FAC. It is a pattern that has become mistakenly established in our articles about animals, and I don't really have the energy to try and turn all of them around. However, the pattern in plant FAs, such as Banksia marginata, which I do support, is to begin with the description. This is also the convention set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Note also that the article template at Wikiproject animals also does not start with taxonomy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template - instead it begins with anatomy and morphology, which is essentially description of the thing. I think it is crazy to have an encyclopedia for everyone that has articles that do not begin by telling the reader what it is we are talking about. I believe that this has resulted from our animal articles following the practice of the scientific literature. But Wikipedia isn't the scientific literature, it is written so that an everyday reader can access it. I propose the order to be: description - taxonomy - palaeobiology - distribution and habitat. In the case of the P. article I would have thought this would be particularly helpful, since the description (and its uncertaintly) would help the reader understand why the taxonomy is so complicated. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, see my response to Animalparty, which he agreed with. Most other FAs about mammals start with taxonomy, so I prefer to follow this clear precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, i'm just wanting to be clear that I don't support the practice, in those precedents or here - i don udnerstand why you would want to follow it. One of the difficulties is in knowing how to change the practice, given that the approach isn't grounded in a Wikiproject template or guideline. But I'll leave this for delegates. :-)
I've actually reconsidered and think precedents should be questioned. There are relatively few paleo mammal FA, and while there does appear to be a common structure of having Taxonomy or classification before description, lets face it some go pretty deep into the minutiae. The trend appears reversed in dinosaur articles (e.g. Allosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus), which often delve deeply into the history of discovery well after the description, and I don't see why that can't be a precedent. The mammal taxa on average don't seem to have taxonomic histories as complex or detailed as Paraceratherium, and the length alone might suggest it be restructured. It may just come down to style differences (i.e. opinions), but I feel most readers would be interested in the size, description, and biology first, and care less about soldiers in Baluchistan (do we need to know his name was Vickaery?), nomenclatural nuances, and lots of names unfamiliar to the average reader (notable scientists be they may). Like I said below, I believe little to nothing would be lost by restructuring, and big-picture clarity might be improved. But I also don't think it's worth debating a whole lot, so I've said my piece. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, then all it comes down to is taste, not policy. Dinosaur articles are structured quite differently from mammal and even bird articles overall, so I don't think they work as precedents. As also noted below, most sources about this animal start by untangling the taxonomic issue before anything else, which gives the subsequent info context. I think you can find as many people (including myself) who prefer taxonomy first as not, but I don't think this article should be a battleground for that. Better to bring it up on the tree of life wikiproject talk page or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Animalparty[edit]

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

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

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

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

Science Fiction Quarterly[edit]

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Older nominations[edit]

Smyth Report[edit]

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

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

Three Beauties of the Present Day[edit]

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

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

Comments from Margin1522[edit]

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

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

Comments from Bamse[edit]

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

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

Just one more thing...

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

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

Generally there, but:

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

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

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

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

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

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)
    • Agreed. It would have been a disaster for the Brits if they'd actually encountered the five Japanese carriers.
  • "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
  • I really don't want to get into this because it's a discussion better saved for the class article, but I've clarified that the Ark Royal design was unarmoured which I hope will suffice. If not, please detail what exactly you think should be explained more thoroughly.
  • 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.
    • Clarified that it's about the class, and not limited to Formidable.
  • "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?
    • No, clarified.
      • Do sources state when this change occurred? It would have improved the ship's capabilities quite considerably Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
        • No, but I've added a note giving the most likely date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The additional crewmen, maintenance personnel" - how many men did these add to her crew?
    • Uncertain, I can't find a figure for Formidable in particular. Illustrious had around 2,000 in 1945, but since they had different AA outfits by then I can't use that figure here.
  • "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)
    • It was her primary role, but I expect her aircraft provided air cover as much as they could.
  • "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?
    • Good catch.
  • "Somerville received word " - suggest replacing 'word' (which sounds like a rumour) with 'intelligence' (which is presumably what he received - most likely decoded signals?)
    • Quite likely, but neither McCart nor Rohwer specify. I can try to hunt it down if you think that it's important.
      • The tweaked wording does the job Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "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
    • They did expect just that.
      • Yeah, but this wording is the British POV, which isn't needed in this context. I'd suggest tweaking it. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them" - what's meant by 'them' here?
    • The Japanese are mentioned at the end of the previous sentence.
      • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " 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?
    • See how it reads now.
      • Looks good, though I've slightly tweaked the wording Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • The only specifics that I've been able to find were a mention that her boiler superheaters needed to be retubed (a six-month job) in Friedman.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your thorough review, Nick. See if I'm missed anything or if my corrects don't quite suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Support My above comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 23 October 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)
    • Thanks for looking the images over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "required repairs' possibly should be "requiring"
  • "the ship was unable to engage the Japanese fleet" Perhaps a hint of "why" should be inserted.
  • I think that perhaps the lede could do with some simplification to avoid these sorts of issues. Refits and the like really aren't appropriate to the lede.
  • "Diego Suarez ... Madagascar" That place is probably worth its own link at some point, especially as there is a likelihood of confusion with Diego Garcia
  • Done.
  • " to simply modify the previous Ark Royal design up to the full limit " This is somewhat vague.
  • Simplified.
  • While it is a minor point, some sort of statement we are talking about Formidable in the first pp would be good.
  • " that much weight that high" Perhaps change one that to "so"
  • Good idea.
  • Footnote 1, especially the word "faired", could use increased clarity. I'm not sure you are consistent in your use of the plural in "round-down" both in text and here.
  • Linked the term, although I'm not sure what else to do to improve its clarity. Good catch on round-down.
  • "to support these aircraft " Unless we are talking about the Corsairs, and only the Corsairs, I suspect this could be "the aircraft" or even the whole phrase made "aircraft support facilities". It strikes me this might be a better place to mention the crew's complement.
  • It would be if I had solid number for her later complement.
  • Were the modifications you mention, such as the flattening of the round-downs, made at the time of commissioning or later? This seems unclear.
  • Clarified.
  • "she had exchanged one octuple "pom-pom" mount for a quadruple mount and she had a" the double "she had" s reads oddly
  • Fixed
  • "her air group only numbered 13 Fulmars, 10 Albacores and 4 Swordfish" This is mildly problematical as you have not yet specified whether this took place before or after her expansion of aircraft capacity, thus the "only" could be better supported.
  • Her initial aircraft capacity was 36 aircraft, so I think that the "only" is appropriate.
  • A brief mention of the immediate fate of Vittorio Veneto might be helpful.
  • Done.
  • "for the loss of one Fulmar forced to land aboard the carrier" My impression as a lay reader was "well, that's the general idea, isn't it?
  • Clarified.
  • I would make it clearer that the Belfast repairs were for the stern.
  • Really? The location of the damage is in the prior sentence and should be pretty clear, IMO. Mentioning the stern twice in quick succession would read oddly, I think.
  • Yes, I agree.
Indian Ocean
  • I would make it clearer which way she went from Sierra Leone to Ceylon.
  • The end of the previous para says that she was in Belfast so I don't really think that I need to spell it out.
  • You state in the lede that Madagascar was Vichy-occupied. This isn't backed up in the body.
  • Done.
  • The word "interfere" is used three times in fairly close succession.
  • Fixed.
Iceland, Norway
  • "Six days later she was in Scapa Flow to begin patrols to Iceland in company with the battleships Howe and Anson and the American carrier Ranger for the next three weeks." I dislike using repeated phrases that rely on a stated point in time. Better to give a date.
  • If the firm date was separated by more text I'd agree that there was the possibility for confusion, but given that the date is given in the previous sentence I don't really think that that's much of an issue.
  • "The ship arrived at Scapa Flow" The last ship referred to was German.
  • Good catch
  • " The loss of their heavy anti-aircraft guns and radar sets" Could you make this clearer? I imagine they were on other ships of the fleet?
  • I'm a little at a loss here because the cruisers and battleships were the most effective AA platforms in the BPF so their detachment did mean a real loss of defensive capabilities. See how it reads now.
  • "The bombardment significantly reduced Japanese aerial activity on 5 May, " Presumably, against the Japanese
  • I don't understand what you mean.
  • " to give her extra time for repairs in Sydney" Extra than what? Was the rest of the BFP scheduled to go there?
  • The entire BPF was scheduled to withdraw for repairs/refits/etc. on either 25 or 29 May.
  • "1.5 inch" Do we need a metric?
  • Nope, converted in the last sentence in the armour section.
  • What does the 67 in the title mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a pennant number, linked in the infobox. Thanks for your review and check to see if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Support well done, as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN6, 8: which Chesneau?
  • FNs19 and 20: publication titles should be italicized, also FN19 should use endash
  • Grubb Street or Grub Street? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks, Nikki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments - I made a few copyedits; feel free to change them.

  • Don't like the informal abbreviation of BRF or PoW, especially because the latter is used only three times and can be easily spelled out.
    • This is really more a style thing, but I've spelled out the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Royal Navy's 1936 Naval Programme" -- red link this?
  • "A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them just three and a half hours ..." -- where?
  • "En route she provided distant cover against a Japanese attack ..." -- what is "distant cover"?
    • Legitimate question, but I'm amused that you're the first to bring it up as it is actually rather jargony. That said, I'm having problems thinking of a way to rephrase the sentence. Done, but see how it reads as I'm not really satisfied with the change in wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The commander of 1842 Squadron was killed on the first day of operations while strafing buildings at Nobara airfield." -- what squadron? Am I missing something? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that you may be. The squadron is mentioned earlier, with a link, so I'm not sure what you mean. I think that I've addressed all of your other concerns. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this at the A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony Hawk's Underground[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from URDNEXT[edit]

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

Comments from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

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

JimmyBlackwing, I just found one article by GameSpot and one by GameSpy with a couple of useful snippets (they weren't focused on the development), but other than that, yeah, I've been disappointed with the paucity of development coverage. Please do look, though. And thanks; I generally work outside WP:VG's tradition of games that are critically acclaimed but often unknown and poor-selling, usually JRPGs or artsy indies - not that I don't enjoy those in my personal life (fun fact: I learned about BioShock and TWEWY years ago by perusing our FA list, and they're now among my favorite games ever made). One consequence of this is that there isn't a whole lot to use as a template when one's writing about a skateboarding game, but I think I pulled this one off pretty well. Tezero (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
My magazines had surprisingly little of use: just a two-page article in EGM 172 (November 2003) with a few interesting quotes. Apparently, there was a cover story on the game in Game Informer June 2003, which I don't own—check with User:Surachit. Also found a short interview on 1UP and a longer one on CVG, which should beef up the Dev section a bit. It's strange that the development of a major game had so little coverage. I guess the press was burnt out on the Tony Hawk series by this point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
These are becoming quite the helpful hands; thank you! (I figured out my charger's fine; I was just connected to a terminal that wasn't plugged in.) Tezero (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing, I've worked everything in and it's looking rather spiffy now. Have you got any prose complaints other than the lack of information on the sequel, which I'll fix once I've read more about it? Tezero (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see that they were useful. I haven't actually checked out the prose yet. My schedule is packed right now, so expect to see me again in a few days. Thought it would be a good idea to eliminate any 1b issues ahead of time. One last thing for now: I found a source earlier ([3]) that might add a sentence or two to the Promotion and release subsection. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading this one—After the Sequel was a fun article and an easy review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Added that. See ya around. Tezero (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

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

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

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

Image and source review from ProtoDrake[edit]

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

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

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

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

The Fifth Element[edit]

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

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

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

Support on prose from Dank[edit]

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

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Edgepedia[edit]

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

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

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

Support from Mirokado[edit]

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

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

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

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

Thanks. That was quick!

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

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

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Referencing errors

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

Image review

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Indeed, fixed.

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

Fair enough, fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.[7]
      • 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, [8] is one of my most-frequently used bookmarks.
  • You generally only need one identifier number per source, choosing the "best" of them. So, for books with an ISBN, you don't need to also include LCCNs and OLs. Otherwise, nice work getting identifiers for most of these. Just missing Powstanie Listopadowe now, I believe, and I'll see if I can't help with that.
  • It is OCLC 739084724 for the downloadable archive material (which will need a format entry in the reference), or 35594683 for the original book. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me see what I can do for the "various authors" problem.
  • For the Mała Encyklopedia Wojskowa, check to see if the specific article you are citing has its own author byline (some encyclopedias do, some don't). If this one does, that's the only author you need; if it doesn't, you are fine to just cite the editor.
  • I'm pretty confident that you can exclusively attribute Powstanie Listopadowe to its editor, also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Translation consistency looks better at least on a cursory glance.
  • Need to check when you link things in the references. I see Rzeczpospolita is linked in Nieuważny, but not at its first appearance in Kraj. I always hate raising this issue, because it's such a pain to manage; this problem (and there might be others, I didn't check closely) are probably an artifact of alphabetization.
  • Is a reliable source? Its copyright is to Российская Империя (Russian Empire). That's clearly not a government copyright (as there hasn't been a Russian Empire since 1917), so I assume it's a private company operating under that name. Now, I most certainly am not fluent in Russian, but I can't find anything like an About page or editorial policy.
Responding somewhat. Let me see what I can do about lending a hand with a couple of these source-format issues, since they're being tricky. Still have some concerns, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Brianboulton: thanks for stopping by. Back in the good old days we had plenty of people willing to help with polishing the prose, listing incomprehensible parts and such. Nowadays the number of Wikipedians who actually contribute to historical articles written by others is much smaller and the backlog in all peer review projects has grown so much that the author is usually left on his own. And in this case the author (me, that is) is not a native speaker. Which means there might be many more such calque translations from Polish and I might not be able to notice them on my own.
Anyway, I corrected the issues you mentioned above. I will also try to make the prose a little more concise, though I'm not sure if the effect would actually make anyone vote on this article. Being a professional journalist I'm quite good at this, but as I said, English is not my native language and apparently I'm not proficient enough to copyedit my own articles. //Halibutt 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please take it as a compliment that in my partial reading I did not actually realise that English wasn't your first language. Apart from the occasional non-idiomatic words and phrases, the quality of the writing looks pretty good. The article does, as I have said, need copyediting and trimming. I don't have much time at present, but should this review be archived without promotion, if you contact me I'll do my best to give the article a proper copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

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

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

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)

Comments from Harry Mitchell[edit]

  • The lead seems a little thin to me. It's not a massive article, so it might just be personal taste (it's a part of writing articles that I find quite difficult personally, so mine tend to be quite long) ... YMMV, to borrow Dank's phrase.
    I will work on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've added a bit more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • cleaver blades were selected by Cambridge Is there a way to rephrase this to avoid the passive voice?
    I tried, and failed. I'm not entirely sure it's a major problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've made an attempt to reorganise it to make it more 'active'. How does it work for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    That looks fine to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • but on the day itself they opted to remain with the macon blades. What I know about rowing you could fit on the head of a pin; what do weather conditions have to with the choice of blade?
    The cleaver blades are more susceptible to striking the surface of the water if the conditions were rough, the macon blades are more... forgiving. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • while Oxford welcomed back five former Boat Race rowers That strikes me as editorialising; can it be re-phrased?
    Indeed, I have done so. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there anything more to be said about the creatine supplements? Was this controversial? Had they been used in previous Boat Racs? Were they used in subsequent Boat Races?
    In all honesty, it was just a nugget of journalism that I discovered. I have looked around for other sources and can't find anything particularly interesting, it was just that the supplements came to prominence in the previous year's Olympics and weren't illegal... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to provide some comments. I'll certainly continue to work on them to your satisfaction. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. It was only nitpicking really. It's an excellent article and I'm certainly satisfied with the changes you've made, so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support – One in a series of what I hope will be a featured topic one day. The nominator clearly has an educated interest in the subject which benefits hugely by his admirable expertise. I have read through this fine article and can see no underlying issues. I suppose one, although purely aesthetically, would be the ugly white space on an iPad between the Pinsent photo and the text. I suspect this will be down to the device and not the software, but worth a mention, if only to see if it is a wiki thing or not. Cassiantotalk 10:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for your interest and kind comments. I'm not sure there's anything I can do about the whitespace other than move the Pinsent image up alongside the text preceding the table. There'd be even more whitespace by the table then, but that may be preferable to whitespace between a table and an image? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments – this is a fine article, and I hope it will be one of a complete family of FAs in due course. A few quibbles, though, before I add my support:
  • You vacillate between the Americanese/tabloidese false title and a respectable English construction with the requisite definite articles. Thus, "… was Canadian Olympic gold medallist and former Oxford Blue Mark Evans…" and "Cambridge Boat Club president Behrens claimed…" (bad) but "The journalist David Miller…" and "Cambridge's boat club president Behrens…" (good).
  • Lead: "…saw changes in both their rowers…" as they have more than two rowers, I think this might be better phrased without the "both".
  • "They put right a lot of mistakes the have made in the past" – …they have made…, I assume.
  • not clear why "Mile Post" is capitalised but "finishing post" isn't.
Tim riley talk 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. Am away from suitable editing tools e.g. A proper keyboard and mouse, until Thursday so I will get to your comments as soon as I can. Thanks for your time and interest! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hah, found some time and some internets... so I've addressed your first three comments, but as to your fourth, even the official website is inconsistent in its capitalisation of "finishing post" but always capitalises "Mile Post". I don't really mind either way, consistency is a good thing I agree, but if the RS are split on it, who knows? What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • You include an issue number for most Times refs but not all - why?
    Probably an oversight or they aren't provided in the sources I have. I've "synthesised" the missing one. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Missing page numbers for FN17, 26, 28
    Not provided in the sources I have. Will seek. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • FN31 should have accessdate.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

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

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

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

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

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

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." [9] 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?
  • I think that's a holdover from the pre-expansion version of the article. De-italicised now. Prioryman (talk)
  • 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
  • No, it's been the UK since at least 1801. The name isn't anachronistic for the period. Prioryman (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok - point taken - I am not strong on history so happy to accept this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lee might have been less soothed if he had known that the police had already recommended "that Inglis should be dealt with by court martial and shot as a spy, if found guilty, and Lee also. - Although I do like the turn of phrase and engaging prose, I do wonder whether it is a bit too embellishing of material and veers into OR about whether he'd be less soothed or not. Does the material make that inference? Might be safer along the lines of , "However he was unaware that....". The second bit can be rephrased and de-quoted.
  • OK, fair point. I've rephrased it. Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Overall and engaging read in a "ripping yarns" kind of way - tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I couldn't see any other clangers outstanding, but obviously some other folks will have to agree.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Harry Mitchell[edit]

Support. This is excellent work. Just a few quibbles:

  • Is "First World War" not more common in Blighty than "World War I"? At least it is in my experience.
  • OK, I've changed this. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • retire from working as a sailor sounds a bit clunky to me; is there a better way of phrasing it?
  • I've amended it to "to abandon a naval career". Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we know how he could afford to live in a luxury hotel?
  • No, but I would assume that he was living off the money that his ex-father-in-law gave him. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • an assumption that was to prove unfounded Do we really need that? Surely any reader would know that a four-year war was not won by a single naval battle?
  • OK, fair point. I've deleted that. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Steinhauer's concerns were well-founded. Is that what the source says? It just strikes me as synthesis, and I'm not sure it adds much.
  • I've rephrased this as "As Steinhauer noted in his autobiography, the UK was a dangerous environment for a foreign agent." Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Lody embarked on his mission "so hastily that he did not even have time to learn a code that might have assisted him to get his messages through." Was that because he was ordered to depart quickly or was that recklessness on Lody's part?
  • Again the sources don't say, but I've read elsewhere that the German naval intelligence service was chronically badly organised - not exactly a model of Teutonic efficiency. It could well have been that they simply were too incompetent to give him the training he needed. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • in some respects it was a strange choice Are those your words or the source's?
  • A paraphrasing of the source, which explicitly highlights the oddity of using one of London's biggest tourist attractions (even then) as an execution ground. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • I echo H's concern about World War I - in my experience, First World War is more common there.
  • I've changed this, as mentioned above. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • who wished to employ him to spy in southern France, to which he agreed. - You don't actually have a noun for him to agree to ("to which" would, in my experience, require a noun)
  • OK, reworded as "He agreed to their proposal to employ him as a peacetime spy in southern France..." Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • the war - I know it would be hard to miss this, but it's possible that a reader may not know you mean WWI
  • At 7 am on 6 November 1914, - do we need to be this specific in the lead?
  • I've reworded this - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • His father was a lawyer in government service, who served as mayor of Odersberg in 1881, and the following year as deputy mayor of Nordhausen, where the Lody family lived at 8 Sedanstrasse (today Rudolf-Breitscheid-Strasse). - so many clauses. Can we break this down a bit?
  • Unable to work any more as a sailor, - yes, you just told us that. What does this add?
  • Good point, I've removed that bit. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Omaha Daily Bee newspaper - do we need "newspaper" here?
  • I suppose it could be another kind of publication (a magazine?) but from the context it's probably clear enough what it is. I've taken out "newspaper". Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The marriage was not a success; the couple lived together for only two months. - "The marriage ... success" feels like editorializing. A two month cohabitation is obviously not a success.
  • OK, I've reworded this: "Despite the high profile of the wedding the couple lived together for only two months." Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As the local Omaha Daily Bee newspaper put it - we were just told this was a newspaper. If you keep the occurrence of "newspaper" above, this one should be cut
  • Arthur Tapken, N's first director, had been Lody's commanding officer during his naval service in 1900–01. - "his" is ambiguous, possibly meaning Tapken since he was the last subject (even though you intend it to mean Lody)
  • Fair point. I've tweaked this to read "during the latter's naval service", which is hopefully a bit clearer. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • said that he was at his disposal. - I'd find a way to avoid the second "his". The (rank's) disposal?
  • Reworded as "and would serve at Prieger's disposal". Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Skipping ahead...

  • the exact time of his execution. - does "exact" add anything here?
  • It probably doesn't, to be honest... Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Carl Hans Lody died for us 6.11.1914 in the Tower of London - the original German being...? It surely wasn't in English, after all.
  • OK, I've added the original German. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • to be run each 6 November at the time of his death. - to be rung, you mean?
  • Well spotted, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Lody was further memorialised in 1937 when the newly launched destroyer Z10 was christened Hans Lody. - This two-sentence paragraph is really short. Can it be merged anywhere?
  • Not much point - I thought it might be better to add a bit more info, which I've done. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why so much weight dedicated to Heuer's play, but so little to Fuch's? And is a Dundee review really good for a German play? (also, "and on 21 February 1937 a play called Lody, by Walter Heuer, premiered on Germany's National Heroes' Day." is rather clumsy; why repeat the date of the premiere?)
  • Heuer's play is the subject of several reviews but I've not seen any of Fuchs' book (which I've looked at; it's a turgid piece of Nazi propaganda). The play was reviewed in several UK newspapers, with the Dundee review being the most comprehensive, so it evidently had a good deal more notability than the book. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting. How about in German sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it's covered by contemporary German newspapers but unfortunately I don't have access to those. It's mentioned briefly in a few modern German books I can see on Google Books but nothing substantive. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The young Bertolt Brecht – 17 years old at the time - young and 17 years old are redundant. Cutting one would be best
  • During World War II, however, - What, exactly, does "however" contrast? The new memorial can't really be tied to the bomb, can it?
  • True - I've taken out the "however". Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • One final proposal was made to rebury Lody in the 1960s. - How do we know this is a "final" proposal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point, I've changed "final" to "further". Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • at 6 pm on 27 August. - again, why is the time relevant?
  • OK, I've changed this to "on the evening of 27 August". Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • all mails or all mail?
  • I think "mails" is the correct terminology in this instance - it's what the cited source uses. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • taking the 2.20 pm train from King's Cross to Edinburgh. - again, why the focus on times?
  • OK, I've taken the time out. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "a Sunday" - Why is this pertinent?
  • Fair point, I can't see that it is. Taken this out too. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • court-martialled - is this the right term? I mean, both were civilians, right? And Lee was American
  • It's the right term. All the other German spies caught during the war were civilians (some of them non-Germans) and they were court-martialled too. 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • if he is a spy or takes up arms ... and he becomes a person without legal - is the ellipses yours? If so, I'd cut "and" and use a [then] instead.
  • The ellipses are in the original source. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In hindsight, it is doubtful whether the charge and eventual sentence were lawful. - according to whom?
  • I've attributed this to Simpson. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It was an opportunity that was taken in the First World War when the highly successful Double-Cross System was implemented. - our article says it was the Second World War
  • Oops, you're right - corrected. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Friday 30 October and Monday 2 November. - again, why include Friday and Monday? Is it really pertinent?
  • I thought it was relevant for explaining why there was a gap of 2 days in the middle of the trial - they weren't weekdays. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My counsellor is an attorney of some standing - don't think you've named him yet, and I'd probably mention it earlier than the closing arguments
  • OK, I've moved the name up. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • . . . - why the triple periods, rather than an ellipses ...
  • Not sure, I've fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • he was an officer in the Imperial German Navy - Maybe I misread, but wasn't he a former officer at this point?
  • No, he was still an officer; just in the reserve. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why was no court martial ever brought against Lee?
  • Because he was completely innocent. I've made this more explicit. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • the 3rd Battalion, the Grenadier Guards - must you give the full title here, on the second and third mention?
  • Fair enough, I've trimmed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tower's Chaplain - what's with the capital C? It's being used here as a general noun
  • No, it's not - the Chaplain of the Tower is a specific and very old position, and a member of the Chapel Royal. Unfortunately we don't appear to have an article about the position, otherwise I'd link it. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Even his captors were themselves captivated; - what does "themselves" add to this sentence? It would be understood even without the word
  • OK, I've taken out the word. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Only the certainty would not be as merciful to our own spies made them refrain. - are you missing a word here?
  • Two actually, I've fixed this - thanks for spotting it. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Admiralstab recommended at the end of 1914 that he should be awarded a posthumous Iron Cross, Second Class, and argued that the recruitment of naval agents would be assisted if espionage could be rewarded with such a prestigious medal. The Kaiser agreed, though not without some reluctance. - when was the IC awarded, or was it not given? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently it was awarded in secret and didn't become public knowledge until after the war. I've not (yet) found any reference to exactly when.
  • @Crisco 1492: Thanks for your help with this review - hopefully I've now addressed all the points you raised. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Support on prose from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Auntieruth55[edit]

Support with a few glitches...

  • (1) In lead: "His subsequent communications with that address were intercepted by censors. Lody had received no training in espionage and wrote all of his communications in plain English or German, without any means of concealment." This needs better wording: Untrained in espionage, his un-coded communications were intercepted by censors... In fact, I would start that para with the statement about his training (lack of it), because that is basically what it is about.
  • Good idea, I've reworded this roughly along the lines you've suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (2) minor glitches in first section: Louise's tour took in several European....Louisa's tour included (took in is idiomatic). suit reinstated when Lody agreed not to contest it. Which Odersberg do you mean? The one in Hesse?
  • Typo on my part I'm afraid, it should have been Oderberg. I've tweaked the wording as you suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (3) "On his return to Germany, Lody settled in Berlin, living in what he described as "well to do circumstances". He stayed in the Adlon, the city's most fashionable luxury hotel, while his sister Hanna lived with her doctor husband in the prosperous suburb....." "while his sister lived...." should it be and his sister? minor thing, it's just that it sounds like he lived there as long as his sister lived in the prosperous suburb, and that these two things are related.
  • I see what you mean, I've tweaked this. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (4)First paragraph of beginning espionage career.... went back a long way...again, idiomatic, and really, is 13-14 years a long way? Also, need explanation of HAL (put HAL in parens after Hamburg America Line). admiralty regarding such employees as Lody as ideal recruits. Really? Even though he had not a jot of espionage training? regarded such employees as Lody as ideal recruits even though they had no espionage training: many spoke fluent and idiomatic English, had connections throughout Europe and the United States and, in the case of Lody, had American connections. ???
  • Someone who's just been recruited won't have had espionage training, pretty much by definition. the point (which I've made clearly enough, I thought) was that employees of shipping lines had a lot of prior knowledge which was useful for the German naval intelligence service. I've reworded a few bits here which hopefully will address the other issues you've raised. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (5) "He left Berlin on 14 August, travelling via Denmark in the guise of an American tourist to the Norwegian port... traveling via Denmark to the Norwegian port, disguised as an American tourist...
    • looking out for =watching for
    • "hired him a bicycle"  ? He hired a bicycle, she rented a bicycle to him.
  • Reworded the above three points. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yours truly Nazi.  ? this needs some explanation doesn't it? His undercover name was Charles Inglis, so why is he using the nickname of Ignatius or Ignatz?
  • Unfortunately there's no explanation in any source that I've seen and Lody himself never explained it during his trial. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (6) where Lody was challenged by an immigration official; ... an immigration official challenged Lody...?
  • (7) British and German publics .... but you refer to the NYTimes? neither a German nor a British press.
  • Yes, but the report from the NYT's London correspondent is about how the British public reacted to the trial. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (8) hagiographic biographical account, Lody – Ein Weg um Ehre, needs translation.
  • Sources these are fine, although I'd prefer to see a listing at list of books that you've used, if not all, instead of simply the notes.
  • Red links I'm not sure of current practice on this, but there seem to be a few that should either be stubbed, or at least explained. Especially the one on Nachrichten-Abteilung, there isn't even a section in it in the Imperial German Navy article. would you be able to fill that in based on what you know?
  • I think I should be able to, I'll have a go at it... Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I like the article very much. It is thoughtful, neutral and well cone. These are probably fairly minor, and I would be happy to support. auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much, I appreciate the review and the support. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

Have I missed a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Source review (based on this version)
  • ""First as Tragedy, Second as Farce": Executing German Spies at the Tower of London During World War One" - "Access date needs URL" error message showing up. Also, title should use single quotes, as you are already using quotes to identify this as a journal article
  • Standardize whether you use 13 or 10 digit ISBNs (13 digit is recommended by WP:ISBN)
  • Standardize whether or not you give locations for newspapers (compare Thüringer Allgemeine and the Fn 6's Daily Bee)
  • Standardize whether or not you abbreviate states (compare FN 5 and 8)
  • Standardize whether you use D-M-Y or M-D-Y date formats
  • Standardize whether or not you give locations for book publishers (compare FN 6 and 36)
  • FN 83: State/province?
  • FN 93: Page numbers?
  • Otherwise looks pretty good. By the way, I've got a nomination going, and would appreciate such skilled eyes on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for doing this - I've sorted them all now, I think. @Ian Rose: - we're all done here, hopefully! Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Those were just examples. There are more. For instance, FN5 has Omaha Daily Bee (Omaha, Nebraska), whereas FN14 just has Omaha Daily Bee. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - I just changed those to be that way. If I give the first instance of "Omaha Daily Bee (Omaha, Nebraska)" then I don't need to state in every subsequent reference that it's from Omaha, Nebraska, do I? Similar to how if you use a book for a reference, you give the full bibliographic details in the first instance and then just the title subsequently? Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have, in the past, stated the place of origin in all instances, this being because if someone removes the first newspaper cite, we then lose the city information, and it appears more consistent. Mind you, I wouldn't argue this too extensively... after all, style is personal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Acacia pycnantha[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A few quibbles before I support.

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

Comments Support from Peter Coxhead[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

CommentSupport from Hamiltonstone[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The Seinfeld Chronicles[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Source review:

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

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

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

Master System[edit]

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

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

Comments by Tezero[edit]

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

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

Comments by Indrian[edit]

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

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

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

Status: Passed

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

Status: Passed

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

Comments made by GamerPro64[edit]

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

GamerPro64, are you still planning to review? Tezero (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do, Tezero. I have been unable to read the article due to IRL work. I'll get around to it this weekend. GamerPro64 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 403[edit]

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

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

  • Support. When I reviewed the article at ACR, I was really impressed by the history section. Hopefully others feel the same way. –Fredddie 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Based on my review at ACR, I feel that this article meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I suppose a bit pointless since independent review is what is still needed, but for avoidance of doubt. BTW, the ACR is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 403. --Rschen7754 08:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Source review—I did not review this at ACR, but I see that this article could use a source review, so here it is. Several of the comments below are more suggestions to consider than actual issues. (Note: a spotcheck was done at ACR as is required of newer promotions there.)
    • FN1: this is listed in full below the footnotes. Should this footnote be shortened? Also, I wouldn't capitalize "and" in the title; that's one of those words that is normally in lowercase in title case unless it is the first word.
    • FN5: I'd swap the hyphen in the Google Maps title to a colon to match the usual convention on titles and subtitles. This suggestion would also apply to other examples where a title and subtitle are separated by a hyphen or dash instead of a colon.
    • FN6, etc: I'd drop the volume and issue number. Those are normally not necessary to locate a newspaper since the date there is the important part. Also, the {{cite news}} template doesn't put the volume and issue number with the page number, unlike {{cite journal}}, so that information is oddly separated.
    • FN7: the |section=News isn't needed with a full page number, and it appears the template is treating that as a section of an article, not the section of the newspaper. (For regular sections of a paper, there is |department= instead.) This would also apply to FN17 and others.
    • FN10: [10] is a dead link. Fortunately, it's in the Wayback Machine at [11]. Additionally, I would make sure to add that it was printed on pages 26 and 31, which are the page numbers printed on the pages where it appears. (Page numbers from the PDF file's pagination don't help readers looking for an offline copy.)
    • FN12: it would help if this were wikilinked to the location of the full citation. I've found {{harvnb}} and |ref=harv to be very useful in that regard. (I don't use {{sfn}} because that omits the reference tags. havnb gets placed within the tags, and then it will appear along with the other references when I use either of the scripts that segregates an article's references in the edit window.)
    • FN13: in {{cite journal}}, I think you should use |journal= Proceedings of the... Convention and |title=Ontario, and maybe you should spell out the full title of Proceedings of the <what?> Convention.
    • FN16: full citation please?
    • FN62: I wouldn't use {{cite journal}} for this one. Instead, I'd use {{cite book}}, and then |volume=vol. 1. When additional text like that is passed in to the |volume= parameter, it drops the boldface and just makes it clear that it is a volume number being referenced. For whatever reason, in this case, {{cite journal}} is separating the volume and page number, so the clue that the bolded number next to another one is absent.
  • The good news is that all of the sources used pass the sniff test for reliability (official government documents, articles from reputable newspapers, maps from recognizable cartographers), so in my opinion, it's just a matter of a little polish on formatting to make this good article better. Imzadi 1979  21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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[12]), 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?[13] FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we have quite a few more interesting "in flight" images than the one used.[14] In general, I think we have nice unused images on Commons that could make the article more visually interesting.
I have taken up most of these suggestions and made some changes to the images. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice, I'll add further comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "seem to be worthy of recognition as long as the species is not split up." What is meant by this? They are only worthy of recognition if the species is not split up? How?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have checked the licenses and sources of the newly added images, they are fine, so further image review is not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "a time when she flies little and the male feeds her so she does not need to fly." Isn't one of these redundant?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " an angry barn owl lowers its head and sways it from side to side, or the head may be lowered and stretched forward and the wings drooped while the bird emits hisses and makes snapping noises with its bill." Both adults and chicks? I've only seen videos of chicks doing this... FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently adults do it as well according to Witherby. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the see also The Owl Box is redundant, as it is already mentioned but not linked under the status section. Once a link is added there, the see also section could be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The intro uses "typical owls" and the article uses "true owls" for the same clade, should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "which forms one of the two main lineages of living owls, the other being the typical owls (Strigidae)" This info is only in the lead, but should be in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "except polar and desert regions, Asia north of the Himalayas, most of Indonesia and some Pacific islands." Likewise, there should be no info in the intro that is not found in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The information is the same but expressed in a different way but I have rephrased the info in the Distribution section slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - All issues fixed nicely, that's it for me! FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

Oxford College of Emory University[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

American paddlefish[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Review by Tezero[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, sorry. Here's more:

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

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

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

More comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

  • The lead section is meant to be a summary of the body of the text, easy to comprehend for someone too busy or lazy to read the rest of the article. Your lead is deficient in some respects. It deals in detail with some topics while completely omitting others. There is little about the fish's description or ecology and much about its common names, distribution and Chinese counterpart.
  • The lead uses complex terms such as "basal chondrostean ray-finned fish", "rostrum" and "peripheral range" which could do with some explanation even where they are linked.
  • There is some overlinking in the body of the article with duplicate wikilinks.
  • The "Tableau_encyclopédique_et_méthodique" should not include the "_"s.
  • I am far from competent myself in formatting references but I can see there are some inconsistencies in the citations. At least one has a date in a different format. Multiple authors are treated differently in different places. #7, Encyclopedia of Life has a stray "<". Some citations have years, others months and years. The capitalisation of the title varies etc.
  • I'll look at the article in further detail later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Cwmhiraeth. I fixed the stray "<", and wanted to let you know I use Provelt to add references. For sources that include citing instructions, I follow their suggestion as applicable to Provelt. I will go through and get the dates consistent, but some references provide only the year, not the month and day. Also, some of the sources provide first/last names, while others included last names only. In instances where there are more than one of the same last name for different authors, I tried to include first names when provided. The variety of sources from web urls to journals to books make it difficult to maintain true consistency. I will do what I can to meet your expectations. AtsmeConsult 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
My advice would be to use just the year and omit the month and day. You can probably fill out the author names with a bit of detective work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The accessdate in Provelt is automatically added using month-day-year. I can use year for publication date, but not all provide a publication date. Also, the titles you mentioned not having a consistency to upper case or lower case are done the way the paper is titled. I used the exact format of the source. AtsmeConsult 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, some of the books are listed using last names only, especially when there are several authors. I would think it would be far more important to list the references according to the way they are listed by the publisher-seller-source rather than trying to name them according to achieve consistency, especially if it makes it difficult to find the book.
Example: [16] - at the bottom of the page it shows how to cite the page. I thought listing the source as suggested was similar to including a CC license which require specific accreditation. Yes, or no? AtsmeConsult 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Finished the citations - used year for publication date, but left access date as is.
Hang on here... Sorry to play ping pong with this article, but I think this is definitely bad advice. There is no justification for changing references to become more vague when they are already specific with regards to date. Some references may only list the year, when it is a book, but others will include month and year, and others will list month, date, and year. Edits like this are definitely a move in the wrong direction. Please refer to WP:CITEHOW for specific content guidelines relating to dates in references. I can't find anything in the manual of style that says references shouldn't be as specific as possible because it looks bad. Sorry, it looks like you've already obliterated the dates in many of those references, but that work needs to be undone. Neil916 (Talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to books and journal articles when I suggested years should be used rather than having a few with months and years with the rest having just years. This advice does not apply to websites or news outlets where a full date and an access date should be used. I was also told that to be consistent, I should either have locations of publishers for all books or for none. As I mentioned above, I am far from an expert on referencing. You could ask Nikkimaria (who is) if she would check the references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I changed all the dates to maintain consistency as requested. I had completed everything requested before I read this post. What should I do now? AtsmeConsult 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dates restored. AtsmeConsult 20:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the author names so all are full names.
I originally quoted article titles in exactly the form used by the authors, but in my first foray into FAC, Bivalvia, I was told "consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titles". In fact I was given a lot of useful advice about formatting references by Sasata in that FAC if you want to look it up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "... a deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin similar to that of sharks although they are not of the same taxon." - I think it would be better to say "not closely related" here.
  • Having established the scientific name for the Chinese paddlefish, I think it would be better to stick to the vernacular name thereafter.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula" - Similarly with Polyodon spathula, American paddlefish might be better here.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula which are composed of extensive comb-like filaments believed to have inspired the etymology of the genus name, Polyodon, a Greek compound word meaning "many toothed." - This sentence would be better split. In fact the derivation of the word Polydon would be better elsewhere.
  • "...numerous small teeth less than 1 mm (0.039 in)" - (0.04 in) would be better.
  • Having stated "However, for most populations the median age is five to eight years and the maximum age is fourteen to eighteen years." it seems rather contradictory to say "Females do not begin spawning until they are seven to ten years old, some as late as sixteen to eighteen years old." Later again you state "American paddlefish can live to be 60 years or older." - It might be better to have all the information on longevity in one place.
  • "The growing importance of American paddlefish for their meat and roe became the catalyst for further development of culture techniques for aquaculture in the U.S. rather than restoration." - I'm not sure "restoration" is the right word here.
  • Link or explain "Spermiating", "polyculture",
  • The last paragraph of "Overfishing and habitat destruction" repeats some information in the previous paragraph, and it seems odd to have the sentence about the history of artificial propagation at the very end.
  • Does the paddlefish feed on the larvae of zebra mussels? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting question. Such studies are rare and speculative. The following link [17] names a few benthic species. Paddlefish larvae may feed on them, but again it's speculation. AtsmeConsult 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I added to the zebra mussel section regarding your question about veliger predation by paddlefish. If reviewers feel what I've added is not acceptable, we can always delete it. AtsmeConsult 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the changes you have made to the article and am now supporting its candidacy on the grounds of comprehensibility and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I am duly impressed with the thoroughness of each review, and how the suggestions have made this article that much better. AtsmeConsult 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

No. 1 Squadron RAAF[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image check - all OK (2 points Done)

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Support A few minor nitpicks:

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

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

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

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

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


  • The details on the Super Hornet in the role and equipment section strike me as a bit too much, and even a bit too "rah-rah" when talking about engaging aerial and surface targets simultaneously. I'd delete everything beginning with its 20 mm armament up to the servicing details.
    • Well I think it's worth saying something about the armaments employed and the aircraft's capabilities, because that obviously has a bearing on the squadron's capabilities. The bit about simultaneous targeting in the air and on the ground seemed to follow naturally from mentioning the role of the second crew member. I mean I could've gone into much more detail on speed, range, the types and models of bombs and missiles carried, the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, and so on, but I thought that would indeed have been too much.
  • Is "eventuated" more common in AusEng than it is in AmEnglish? It strikes me as rather pretentious as I think of it as one of those passive verbs used to distance the action from the actor. I'd suggest a simple "happened" or "occurred".
    • No prob, will do.
  • Aside from these minor quibbles, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks for looking it over Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

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

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

Comments by Ɱ

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

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

Image review

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

Other remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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
Done: Rm Youtube in favour of DVD sources (and the film is out of copyright in my country). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 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
Done: Rm Japan image, and kept drum dance image as non-free file. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)

@Graham Beards: My first opportunity to use your 'new' name BTW, congrats...! Anyway, did you want to make any further comment before I look at closing this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Hi Ian, no more comments from me. Graham Beards (talk) 07:14, 18 October 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' ([18], [19] and [20]) 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 [[21]]). 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)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

  • Pictures are missing alt text
Done: Alt texted both images. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Two duplicate links in casting section and three in legacy section
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is is possible to replace ref 53 glamsham with something more reliable?
Done: Removed Glamsham. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you remove or replace ref 127 behindwoods, if ref 126 Hindu will not suffice on its own?
Actually, The Hindu states that the event is going to happen (future tense), and Behindwoods states it happened. What do I do? I can't find any alternative for Behindwoods, which I think satisfies WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you can use a primary source in this case, such as this? I don't want to see behindwoods in an FA is possible. I have been told numerous times that it's not RS. Same for glamsham. BollyJeff | talk 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: What an excellent alternative! I have replaced Behindwoods with it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Upperstall external link is useless, Bollywood Hungama link should be italicized
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • One entry in bibliography is missing an author name
Might it be Indian cinema: A Visual Voyage? I can't find the author name on it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Some links here list National Film Development Corporation of India as the author, so I would go with that. BollyJeff | talk 12:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Bibliography and Categories should both be placed in alphabetical order
Done: Sorted books alphabetically. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It is usually done by last name of the author, the first word that appears on the line. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, but need more time to look it over better. BollyJeff | talk 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Casting section: "who later became Sivaji Ganesan" sounds odd. Maybe use "who later became known as" as is done later in the paragraph, or some other verbiage. Why do they change their names?
I dunno why, but the actor got the prefix "Sivaji" after acting in a play as Shivaji. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "because she was then moving to Modern Theatres, Salem permanently" could be "because she was then permanently moving to Modern Theatres in Salem". Also, explain why would this make a difference.
Either way, it should explain that she completely quit working for Gemini Studios. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I see the problem. It was not clear to me as originally worded, and maybe still to other readers, which one was moving. BollyJeff | talk 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Filming section: $105,000.11 ? A little rounding wouldn't hurt. Also remove space between rupee sign and amount here and everywhere
  • Themes and influences: first paragraph - put films in time order in the sentence (Ben-Hur last), and put separate opinions in time order as well if you can. This same comment applies to Critical response-India sectoin.
  • Box office: I would definitely not use the IBOS figure. These tend to be highly inflated. The two films at the top of that list are both already FAs (by yours truly), and do not use the figures from IBOS.
Done: Rm IBOS as box office source, but retained it as a purported source for the Hindi version's release date. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all - very impressive. BollyJeff | talk 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - BollyJeff | talk 19:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Support by Redtigexyz[edit]

  • File:Chandralekha drum dance scene.jpg is PD-India and not copyrighted as per Indian laws. Screenshots of movie are in PD after 60 years from date of release. Just tag it PD-India too and mention in comments in fair use rationale.
I tried convincing several other reviewers about the same, but they said it is still copyrighted in the US (after the British Raj, are we now under the rule of the Americans, who can determine the status of our property?) Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It is copyrighted per URAA. I am just saying. Also tag it as PD-India and write rationale in fair use rationale. This is good to have thing. :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: As per your advice, I have added the PD-India tag to the file, which is still marked as a non-free fiel with FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead para should have the language/industry (Tamil cinema) of the film. See Pather Panchali.
As how? "a 1948 Indian Tamil historical fiction film"? I would also like to call it an "epic film" due to its spectacle. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"a 1948 Indian Tamil historical fiction film" works for me. Epic film: not sure. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: Written the same way. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

* Hindi version: Since there was difference in versions, was the entire film reshot in Hindi OR was it dubbed in Hindi? Since there is a difference in cast, may be it was reshot. This part is unclear from the article.

Except for one source which provides no deep analysis, the others clearly mention the Hindi version as being shot (the slight change in cast also explains the Hindi version as being shot), although Mani Ratnam is unsure whether the film was shot or dubbed in his claim. So I will write the Hindi version as being shot only. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Read a para about it in Release. Move to the "Differences between versions". I will also suggest renaming it as "Hindi version".--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I will suggest that Hindi version from "Release" be moved be moved to "Hindi version", as it is seems amiss in Release section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Just what and all do I move? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where did Chandralekha premiere?
Are you referring to the claim that comes under "Marketing"? I am too tired to do anymore research, so I think I'll just remove the claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I am talking about "Chandralekha was released on 9 April 1948 at ______ ". Premiere show was at which theatre.. Sadly, research needed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: Written that it released throughout South India at the same time. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? Generally, even Indian films as early as 1920s had premiere shows. If this film did not have one, I will take your word for it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the only source, I have written it as having released throughout the South at the same time. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Trusting your research.--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "it was the first Indian film to be dubbed and released in English" needs a better reference. The source is a book on stamps, which is not the best source for an extraordinary claim like this one. The Hindu says "He also pioneered making South Indian films in English"
Is "Post Haste Quintessential India" the book you are referring to? I think I'll just remove the claim, and reduce the length of the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I think you should mention "He also pioneered making South Indian films in English" (copied from the Hindu). Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Talk 12:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done: Rm dubious claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "became the most expensive Indian film at that time" extraordinary claim needs ref from film-related reference. Not a local Chennai magazine.
The reputed film historian Randor Guy is the author of this source, which reads at the end "Excerpted from Starlight, Starbright with the permission of the author". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Plot: "of a fictitious region" seems unnecessary, remove or replace with name of kingdom in film. In the film, the king had a real kingdom. Right?
I saw the film last year, and don't remember whether the kingdom's name was specified. So I have just referenced the kingdom without a name, although someone may ask, "what was the kingdom's name?" Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "outwits a vicious bandit, delivers the final insult ..." quotes need inline references
Done: Included ref at the end of the paragraph it is in. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Subbu's wife M. S. Sundari Bai : who is Subbu? Is it the storywriter K. Subbu. May be write "storywriter Subbu's wife"
Done: Written Kothamangalam Subbu. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Music: film historian M. Bhaktavatsala, film critic V. A. K. Ranga Rao, B. D. Garga say the same thing. Remove repetition: carnatic, Hindustani ... Merge "Critical reception". No separate heading needed. It has no contemporary views.
Done: Sections merged, and identical views deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Critical response" has become a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can something be done about it. Also, add dates for all reviews.
The best anyone can do is trim down William K. Everson's quote. I earlier put the whole quote as I couldn't figure out which of his sayings should go out. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: Dates already there, and quotes are at suitable level. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove: The opening titles of both versions include a line reading "100 Gemini Boys & 500 Gemini Girls". Not a difference. Already stated.
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Talk 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • There is again repetition about J. Mahendran and K. Balachander--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: Was there anything you wanted to add before I look at closing this review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose, there are minor things to do. I am ok with passing it in its current form too, if you deem appropriate. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Ian Rose, Done. :)Redtigerxyz Talk 14:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's all the comments he has. Once they have all been solved, I think this FAC can be closed; it does look like the article will pass. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 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)
  • Support – With my tweaks to the layout/source-code addressing the MOS issues, and based upon a read-through of the article, I think this is now ready for FA-status. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 15:13, 19 October 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.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • 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.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • SPEERT, H (1949 Mar). "Carcinoma of the endometrium in young women.". Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics 88 (3): 332–6. PMID 18111780.  Check date values in: |date= (help) 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]

 Done SUPPORT after the below points were addressed. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

  •  Done 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)
Acceptable if there are no alternatives. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done 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)
  • We had a discussion about putting refs in the lead here [22]. For multiple reasons they are a good idea to keep to some extend. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a deal breaker. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done 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?
  • It's since been changed, possibly by me? Better now? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The words "these symptoms" remain ambiguous. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It now reads "Of women with these less common symptoms (vaginal discharge, pelvic pain, and pus), 10–15% have cancer.", is it more clear now? Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems reasonable, although semantically one could still argue that the sentence is ambiguous as to whether this is an AND or an OR relationship. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Risk factors: many readers may not understand what an "immigration study" is, and a short explanation of its relevance would be beneficial.
  • Hopefully gave a fairly decent explanation.
  •  Done 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.
  • Yeah, that's basically what's going on, there's a loose statistical association but the general consensus is that it's due to tamoxifen. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done 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.
  • I haven't seen any authors make that direct connection, but it's implied in several texts. Is it okay as it stands? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If there are no sources suggesting some causality then I am happy with the current version. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't find anyone explicitly suggesting causality, no. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Pathophysiology: the text refers to "Type 1" and "Type 2" cancers, but they are only defined further down in the article (in Diagnosis#classification)
  • Er, should I move pathophysiology? Because I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of classification in the middle of discussing pathophys. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You can get away with saying "(explained below)". JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Management#Surgery: the exact purpose of mastectomy in type 2 tumors is unclear ("prophylaxis" is vague)
  • So the source just says "For type II lesions, mastectomy is usually added." My assumption is that it's got something to do with estrogen receptors but I'm digging for a more comprehensive explanation. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the average reader might be puzzled so I do think that this needs clarification. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I can't find any other sources anywhere that say anything about prophylactic mastectomy in endometrial cancer, so I've gone ahead and removed that sentence. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Management#Add-on therapy#Radiotherapy: some short explanations of concepts like EBRT and brachytherapy would be valuable
  •  Done Management#Targeted therapy: if this is not in widespread use it might be better to move this to "Research"
  • Eh, it's becoming part of standard of care? I also can't see a good place for it to live in #Research. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The olaparib article says that it's still undergoing clinical trials. I wouldn't create the suggestion that it is used routinely, hence my recommendation for the research section. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I've moved all of that to a subsection of research. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done 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 think someone went through and linked them, I don't have strong feelings one way or another. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Certainly agree with JFW that the red link is annoying, and I'd also question whether supplying journal links in general is actually helpful. (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

@Jfdwolff: I think I've addressed everything, would you be willing to take another look please? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 21:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Keilana Great work. Just a couple of loose ends but coming very close to full support. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jfdwolff: I think I've tied those up, thanks again! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Keilana: Excellent work. SUPPORT for FA from me! JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Agree excellent article. One comment is that I would either add redirects where appropriate or a small amount of content at the red links. This is simply a personal thing and is in no way required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions from an ip collaborator[edit]

First of all, I too would like to congratulate Keilana on her exemplary work here.

In the lead:

  • Endometrial cancer is when cancer arises from the endometrium... Personally, I'm uncomfortable with this structure on stylistic grounds. Suggest either Endometrial cancer is cancer that arises from the endometrium... or Endometrial cancer occurs when cancer arises from the endometrium...
  • It is due to the abnormal growth of cells that... The expression "due to" seems to imply that it is caused by abnormal growth (which at a cellular level is admittedly true). Suggest It stems from the abnormal growth of cells that...
  • Suggest While Whereas taking estrogen alone increases...
  • Suggest Between two and five percent of cancers cases are related to genes inherited from a the person's parents.

In the reference list:

  • I haven't a clue how templates....template so I'm the wrong person to ask about this. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

tbc (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@ (does ping work with IPs??) Thank you very much for your comments! I look forward to hearing more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by WS[edit]

Great article, seems to be very complete and almost ready to be a featured article. I have some concerns/comments:

  • The word 'should' is used far too often (women with endometrial cancer should...)
  • A lot of numbers and percentages are given, but it is not always exactly clear what they mean (e.g. the risk of endometrial cancer is 1.6%, is this annual risk? lifetime risk? in women only (presumably)? Also, assuming this is lifetime risk, it contradicts the 2-3% number given a few sentences below)
    Only in people with uteruses, yeah. Nothing in Pubmed on trans men and their risk of endometrial cancer, though I did find this and this, which say that trans men taking testosterone who haven't had a hysterectomy may be at higher risk. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I was not sugesting including trans men in this, just adding 'in women' to that sentence would do. However the point on the numbers/percentages which are not always completely clear still stands. --WS (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    Keliana, do you know whether that number accounts for the hysterectomy rate? I believe that something like a third to half of American women have a hysterectomy. When you're talking about older women, the gap between "1.6% of people who were born with a uterus" and "1.6% of people who still have a uterus" is about half a million American women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Wouterstomp: and @WhatamIdoing: Okay, so I've been looking into this for the past few days and here's the deal. The first pair of numbers (0.6% vs 1.6%) is in women up to the age of 75 and doesn't mention the hysterectomy rate. I read the original paper and it didn't say anything about hysterectomies - I'd therefore assume "1.6% of people who were born with a uterus". The second number (2-3% lifetime risk) includes women after the age of 75 and also doesn't mention hysterectomies. I'm not sure these numbers are incompatible because they used different age ranges, and given that the average age of diagnosis is pretty high, the incidence after 75 could be skewing that number a bit. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Routine screening of asymptomatic women is not indicated, since the disease is highly curable in its early stages." - I would consider this a strong argument for rather than against screening; or is it meant to say early symptomatic stages?; also screening could have its own subsection.
Early symptomatic stages, it's usually symptomatic very very early on. Routine screening would pick it up about when someone would be noticing symptoms.
...and I don't think that would technically count as screening. 2c, (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think what they're suggesting is, like, doing a Pipelle biopsy on women after menopause. Which would be ineffective because it would pick up cancer right around the stage when they'd be noticing the sx anyways. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest starting the article with a classification section, and only keeping a few sentences about classification in the diagnosis section (especially considering the pathophysiology section discusses type I and II cancers without them having been defined before).
Just to clarify, do you want me to move the existing classification section to the beginning of the article, or add something about classification to the lead or something else? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • in the lead: "In 2012, endometrial cancers occurred in 320,000 women and caused 76,000 deaths." - Although these might be impressive numbers, risks/percentages would be more useful i.m.o.
I'm gonna hold off on that till we sort out what's up with the risk percentage stats. I'd also like to keep the incidence numbers in the lead if that's okay. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Alcohol consumption is associated with endometrial cancer, though the association has not been fully investigated and is not currently considered significant." - Not really sure how to interpret that, can this be left out?
Basically, some studies show an association with alcohol, but the studies aren't strong enough to say there's definitely a connection yet. I'm open to taking it out. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The diagnosis section is a bit vague; it could use a short introduction indicating what the definite diagnosis is based on, and what role physical examination, imaging and histology have.
Okay, I've written some intro text. How's it look? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The history section could be expanded; e.g. here you could mention when things like chemotherapy or hormonal therapy were widely introduced into clinical practive , instead of the somewhat vague definitions now used in the specific sections (e.g. "Adjuvant chemotherapy is a recent innovation")
Unfortunately, I'd have to end up delving into OR to write this properly, so that may be a future publication for me that we can then cite here. ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The research section is quite long; is this all up-to-date information or merely the text that has accumulated over the years? I would generally prefer keeping it short and only indicating broad research directions being pursued instead of specifics.
This is all recent, compiled in the past month or two. Everything should be up to date and I'm committed to keeping it that way. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's great. --WS (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The see also section can be removed I think.
Not sure what the rationale for the links there was, I've changed it to actually useful see also links. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A lot of info is sourced to the Cochrane reviews. Although these are (very) high quality sources, they address a specific question, and I think they should be primarily used to support this topic, while more general information is more appropriately sourced to a good more general review article.
The parts I'm citing from the reviews are usually the review of literature bit, not necessarily the results bit. I can duplicate with a traditional review article if you'd like, though. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This is perhaps more a matter of personal preference, the Cochrane reviews are certainly ok as well. --WS (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made some further smaller changes myself. Support feature article candidacy once most of these points are resolved. --WS (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp: Thanks so much for your review! I really appreciate it. I've answered some above and will keep plugging away in the next few days. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Wouterstomp: Okay, I think I've cleared most of these up. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp: are you satisfied with the responses to you review? Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wiki CRUK John[edit]

  • Support noting some potential COI. I've been hanging back on this, because I got a review of the article by Cancer Research UK staff, and it makes good use of the images CRUK have released as part of my project (last 5 images in the current version). I've also been waiting to see what more expert reviewers had to say. I've made the odd change myself too. I'm happy it meets FA standard. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've had a re-review at CRUK, as it's moved on a fair bit since the first, and will make most of the changes straight to the article, if that's ok. I'll come back with a diff here. It's pretty much all fine-tuning. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • One point echoing WS above is his "I would suggest starting the article with a classification section, and only keeping a few sentences about classification in the diagnosis section (especially considering the pathophysiology section discusses type I and II cancers without them having been defined before)." See also one of JFW's points, resolved by a "see below". WP:MEDMOS's list of recommended sections says:
      • The following list of suggested headings contains wikilinks; the actual headings should not.
        • Classification: If relevant. May also be placed as a subheading of diagnosis
      • Signs and symptoms or Characteristics ....

- but I think all the cancer articles I've looked at put "Classification" as a subheading of diagnosis, rather than at the start. I think this is often sub-optimal. As it now is, with sub-sections on several types, some pretty rate, I think it's too long to put it all at the top. But a summary just below the lead would be good. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wiki CRUK John: Thanks for getting a re-review! I'm not sure what to call the shorter section other than "classification". perhaps "types"? I could do just one or two sentences on each subtype. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 13:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You could call the top one Classification & in diagnosis "types". I wouldn't even do one or two sentences on each subtype, just take up the "carcinoma" summary, & ad