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—Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 {{Article history}}.

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  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.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

2011 White House shooting[edit]

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On on November 11, 2011, bullets struck the second floor near the first family's formal living room of the White House, but It took four days for the Secret Service to realize it. "The shit really hit the fan" when President Barack Obama returned from his travels five days later, and by October 2014, the services of two directors of the United States Secret Service were no longer required. Please enjoy reading this Social sciences and society good article, which we believe is ready to be a featured article. Please let us know your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Telopea oreades[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) & Melburnian

This article is about a nice flower from cool and wet forests in southeastern Australia. Started reading as I was planning on trying to grow some...and so began buffing the article. There are two of us nominating so we should be able to address issues pretty quickly. I have scoured just about everywhere I can think of for info. Have at it, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Image license review by --Gaff (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

formatted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
not sure what to do about that - best to ask at commons and either exonerate or nuke the parent file I guess....if nuked I will draw another one. Will ask over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you or I could make a nicer looking map in SVG format. I'd be honored to assist, though suspect you can handle it. --Gaff (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright then, yer on - offer of help greatly appreciated and taken up. send me an email and I'll send you an image of the range from the book I have. I am not good with different file types...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Moving the discussion to User:Gaff/Map_request#Telopea_oreades to not muddy up this FAC discussion (and give me a chance to geek out that I have a map making project). --Gaff (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
har har... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution[edit]

Nominator(s): Maile and Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This article covers the war in 1835-1836 that led to Texas independence from Mexico. In one corner, we have a grandiose dictator, convinced his honor depends on wiping out American vermin, who tolerated no argument with his increasingly short-sighted decisions. In the other, a group of ill-disciplined volunteers - some of whom had been in Texas only five minutes - who couldn't agree on what they were fighting for or whether the orders their commanders issued really needed to be followed after all. The fact that today (March 2, 2015) we're celebrating the 179th anniversary of Texas independence is, quite frankly, a miracle.

We began work on this article after a WMF representative passed on a request by The History Channel for this article to be on the main page at the end of May, when their new miniseries Texas Rising premieres. While the History Channel's miniseries are known for their, ahem, loose relationship to actual events, we hope this article can clear up any misconceptions that viewers might have. Neither Maile nor I have had any contact with The History Channel reps - this is a topic we've long been interested in, and the request was simply a push for us to actually jump in.

Much thanks to iridescent, who provided significant feedback on the article before the rewrite, and to our peer reviewers/copyeditors Mike Christie and Dank. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. I was impressed with this at peer review, and everything I noted there has been fixed. It's good to see higher-level history articles getting brought to featured level. Very nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the edits since the peer review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Very quick driveby comment (delegate, don't take this as a support or oppose); the Legacy section talks about English-speaking and Tejano perspectives on it, but doesn't mention how Mexican historians view it. (Per my comments a couple of months ago, the featured es:Independencia de Texas gives a very different weight to various parts of the story, most noticeably to the US eye only giving a couple of sentences to the Alamo, and this presumably reflects their sources). When I get the chance, I'll do a proper read-through and review of this finished version. – iridescent 13:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been unable to find sources in English that discuss current Mexican perspectives on the war, although there is one note that Spanish-language sources also compare the Alamo to the Battle of Thermopolaye. I've found a few translations of Spanish essays by Josefina Vazquez (a university professor in Mexico), and they seem to approach the topic very similarly to the English-language sources. I'll keep looking for more coverage of that perspective in the English-language sources, but there's not much I can do if it isn't in English. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Spanish version of the article is featured; might be worth looking at that in Google translate to see if the perspective is different. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I see Iridescent already linked that. That'll teach me to post without reading the comments properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Karanacs, Iridescent, Mike Christie, I just ran the WP Spanish through Google translator. The translation is located here: Talk:Texas Revolution/Google translation from WP Spanish version. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a talk page invitation at the WP Mexico, asking for input from that project when we knew this was coming up. You can find that post at this link. As far as I remember, nobody responded. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, on the article's talk page, back in January we did solicit Mexico's viewpoint from a WP editor who lives in Mexico and is part of WP Project Mexico. His response is Here. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now having read through the (imperfect) Google translation, I think the basic story is the same. Some differences. Like our own article before Karanacs reworked it, Tejano participation in the revolution is missing. There is more emphasis on slavery being the cause of the revolution, and an emphasized POV that the revolution was instigated by interlopers from the USA. The Runaway Scrape is mentioned only in that Houston's motive was to pick his own terrain for the battle, and to disrupt the Mexican army's supply sources. They have Santa Anna burning Gonzales, when it was Houston who actually did that. And if Google Translate got it right, the Spanish language version says the Texian army went against Houston's authority to pursue Santa Anna. Their aftermath is not much, but doesn't contradict with what we have. I think the article we submit here with FA is a much more detailed, fleshed-out account of the same story. — Maile (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor comments

  • I believe the page number for footnote 41 "Davis (2006), pp. 206, 2011." is incorrect as the book only runs to about 370 pages. Should it perhaps be 201, 210 or 211 instead of 2011?
  • Schoelwer, Susan Prendergast (1985) listed in the references appears not to be used in the article.
  • "Stuart (2007), p. 84." should probably be changed to either Stuart (2008) or Reid (2007).

P. S. Burton (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Burton, I've fixed these three. Thank you so much for doing the final gnome-work on this article. I had checked it several times and embarrassed I missed to many of those details. Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome Karanacs. I guess it takes more than one pair of eyes to catch them all. On that note, there might still be something wrong with the Stuart ref. You now have two separate refs pointing to Stuart (2008), p. 84. But one of them have the ref name "stuart87". Perhaps either the page number is wrong or the two refs can be combined. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that one too :) Karanacs (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1804 dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Fantastic 1804 Dollar (as it was described in the title of the landmark work by Eric P. Newman and Kenneth Bressett). Also famously lauded as the "king of American coins," the 1804 dollar is among the most famous and controversial coins in American history. Although they were dated 1804, they were actually first struck some thirty years after that date. Although it was widely believed at one time that the coins were struck in 1804, numismatists began questioning that by the late nineteenth century. In truth, they were initially created in 1834 for inclusion in diplomatic gift sets for the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and the King of Siam at the behest of a diplomat named Edmund Roberts. Two additional sets were created for officials in Cochinchina and Japan (twenty years before Matthew Perry's forced entry into that nation), but they remained ungifted due to Roberts' death in Macau. Later, clandestine restrikes were created to satisfy collector demand, and those too are very valuable today. In 1999, one example (probably the one presented to the Sultan) sold for over $4 million at auction, which was the highest price ever paid for any coin at the time. In total, fifteen specimens are known today. The contributions of Godot13 are hard to overstate, both for this article and for coins in general, as most of the images in this article as well as some of the formatting are due to his hard work. Wehwalt's assistance was also vital, both as a set of skilled eyes to look over the article and for his help in supplying sources. I believe the article meets all FA criteria, and I thank you in advance for reading, and for any comments or suggestions you might be willing to offer.-RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I did some tweaking of the article. It is comprehensive, thorough, and well-written. And well-illustrated :) --Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review:

  • :File:King Nangklao.jpg requires a US copyright tag in addition to what it has.
  • :File:1804 dollar edge.jpg If this is your own graphic creation, it is a derivative work of the edge of the original coin. The copyright tag for that, no doubt the US money one should probably be included.
  • :File:1804 dollar comparison.jpg should probably have a money copyright tag in addition to what it has, as well.
    Aside from those, all images are appropriately licensed. Great work!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and image review! I've added all of the appropriate licensing templates.-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Camille Saint-Saëns[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hot from peer review, another French composer whose article I hope will be found fit to join his compatriots at FA – his friend Georges Bizet, his pupil and protégé Gabriel Fauré, his rival Jules Massenet, his mutual unadmirer Francis Poulenc and one he never heard of, Olivier Messiaen. Unlike these other distinguished musicians, Saint-Saëns was a polymath, a capable practitioner in many fields including astronomy, musicology, philosophy and archaeology, as well as an organist, piano virtuoso and composer. The challenge has been packing it all into an encyclopaedia-size article. I have enjoyed his company while writing about him, and I hope reviewers will enjoy it too. Tim riley talk 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support With pleasure, addressed my concerns at the PR. A fine, well-written article on a major composer which thoroughly deserves to be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctor, for support here and input earlier. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Gaff --> see concerns below.

Audio file review by Gaff --> see concerns below.

Gaff: do you wish the queried items to be removed? I can do that, but I have no idea how to delete the actual files from WP. Tim riley talk 19:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would hate to see them have to be removed and most (probably all) of this looks fixable. I'll try to help out with it, but am swamped. I'm new at doing these reviews and just following the lead so another more experienced reviewer please double check. --Gaff (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. @Crisco 1492:, I wonder if you would possibly have time to lend your expertise to all this, please? (And to the prose, too, of course, if you're so disposed.) Tim riley talk 22:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: Latercomer to the peer review, found a few things to quibble about which were duly rectified. The article shows all the characteristics of a well-prepared Riley music biog, beautifully written into the bargain. Two questions: why does Camille as a boy look at least 35, and why, aged 45 in 1880, does he look 75? Honestly, though, this is first-class stuff. I sincerely hope that the audio files all pass muster as "free"; such can bring a composer's works to life more effectively than even the best-chosen prose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Gosh! Thank you, BB for those very kind words. Coming from one who weighs rather than counts his successful FACs I take them as an enormous compliment. I agree about the sound files but they were there before I started my overhaul, and my ignorance of the subject is flawless. Tim riley talk 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Support; I was a fellow traveller at PR and my few complaints were dealt with admirably. An excellent and enjoyable article that has only strengthened since PR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your support here and input earlier. Thank you so much, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final. I believe it should be featured because it represents some of the best work on Wikipedia. I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured article, as it is extremely well-written, it covers the subject comprehensively, all facts are adequately sourced, it's written in a neutral tone and the article is stable. The style of the article meets all criteria regarding the lead, the section hierarchy and the format of the citations. The article also contains sufficient images and other media, all of which are licensed correctly. Finally, the article is of a good length and doesn't go into unnecessary detail. – PeeJay 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose at present: Peejay has done the right things: having obtained GA status he (presumably) put the article through a peer review before bringing it here. Nevertheless, from a reading of the lead and background sections I'm not convinced that the article yet meets the standards required for FA promotion

Lead
  • Overall, the lead does not comply with the expectations of WP:LEAD. It should summarise the content of the whole article; at present it over-concentrates on incidents in the match
    • Agreed, see below response. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the time of the kick-off so important that it should appear in the first line of the article, and in two different time zones?
    • No, it has been deleted. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was also Chelsea's first European Cup final in their history." Clumsy and tautologous.
    • Agreed. I'll work on re-jigging the lead to better express the historical significance of the match, both in relation to the past and the future. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Background

There are several prose issues:

  • First sentence far too long (50+ words), and has "including" twice in quick succession.
    • Sentence has been split and reworded. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Their cup record was equally good, winning 10 of their 18 cup meetings..." Poor syntax, and in addition the same pronoun (their) is used in the sentence with two different meanings. In the first instance it refers to Man Utd, in the second it refers to both sides.
    • I've replaced the second "their" with "the". – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Non-encyclopedic language: "honours were even" is just about OK, but "got their own back" definitely not.
    • Reworded. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of overdetailing in the second and third paragraphs. All that stuff about how the two sides fared historically in Europe against other English sides is worth a short sentence, no more. Likewise, you don't illustrate Chelsea's European credentials by referring to their non-appearance in the first European tournament sixty years ago. And the details (casualties etc) of the Munich disaster are extraneous to this article.
    • I've cut down the info about past meetings between English opposition, but retained the detail in the form of footnotes. Is this acceptable? Also, I've cut down some of the Munich info, but I left in the bit about eight players being killed and Busby almost dying as I feel it lends necessary context to Busby rebuilding the team over the next 10 years prior to their first European Cup win in 1968. – PeeJay 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably further copyediting is needed, but I'd like to see the above issues addressed before proceeding with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono

I appreciate that Brianboulton has found ways that the prose can approve and agree that nothing is ever complete. I have gone over the article multiple times during review and while trying to improve the articles on my prefered team. My only concern with supporting this article is that it sets too high of a standard in the topic area/(and I dislike both teams). Full-on support.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I hope that the nominator will give a more considered and sensible response to the points that I have raised. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Cptnono that nothing is ever perfect and that FA status is not a badge that nothing in the article needs changing, and I believe that the article could be given FA status as it stands. However, I am biased. I am a perfectionist and I thank Brianboulton for his review of the article, which I am currently using to help the article come as close to perfection as possible. I look forward to a more comprehensive review from Brianboulton so we can give the article the little gold star it deserves. – PeeJay 16:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That was not meant as a slight on your review, Brianboulton. I think it is great that you are so thorough!Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose; EddieHugh

There is a vast amount of trivia in this article that appears to have been included just because the information is available. As the opening phrase puts it, "The 2008 UEFA Champions League Final was a football match"; there's no need to tell the reader the personal history of the referee, how the ball was unveiled, how many flights were required to get supporters to Russia, visa arrangements, which people handed over the trophy before the match, the 50-year history of the stadium, great detail of the clubs' 50-year European history, team predictions, etc., etc. Without cutting perhaps 20%, this should fail, based on criterion 4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." EddieHugh (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Portrait of Monsieur Bertin[edit]

Nominator(s): Modernist, Ceoil, Kafka Liz, Ewulp

Bertin presents as somewhat firesome, but was a charming conversationalist, an arts patron with deep pockets, and had a cheerful -perhalps motherly- disposition. Ingres portrait is rightfully seen as one of the most innovative and importaint 19th c paintings by any artist. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The image should use {{Infobox artwork}}, and the size of the lead image is very big. It has 410 px, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size suggest no more than 300 (and the image does not seem to be included among the possible exceptions). The article includes as well several cases where the text gets "sandwiched" between images. Cambalachero (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the fourth nomination; the other tgree were closed due to a lack of responses/feedback; so please review! The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono

  • The lead seems short. It loos to be a good summary of the article, though. Consider adding a few lines if possible. (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
I know it seems short but I feel like it gives the perfect preview of the topic without going into too much detail. However, I would be happy to add on to it if you would like me to. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It might seem contrary to the above, but the lead bogs down in specific dates regarding the delay in opening. Would such details be better in the body with more general phrasing in the lead? (Summer of 2014, delayed x weeks/months, or similar)? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
All the dates in the lead can be considered "important" dates which is why I made sure I specified the exact date (dates of when an attraction opens is considered important).--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The quote "interesting soil conditions" is lacking. I found my self checking the ref just to get something more specific. Can it be reworded? A quick paraphrase without the quote would work.
The article never states what the exact conditions were so I fail to see what your are reading as more specific (do you mind explaining please? :D )
  • I assume the FAA is mentioned due to the height. A line explaining this would be useful.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "At the end of February" and "A week later": I think these need commas.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with a previous reviewer that the quote box needs to go. It pinches the text with the image of the tower on the right.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Falcon's Fury's tower" image seems too large. I think a simple thumb with the "upright" parameter would be sufficient
I'm not exactly sure how you want the imaged re-sized but I just reduced the size to 200px.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel like the reader is bombarded with the term "queue" in the first paragraph of the "Ride experience" section. Can this be adjusted? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
I personally feel like its fine, but I took out some of the "queue"'s.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "tonne" the correct measurement to use before conversion? I'm under the impression that it is a "metric ton" in the US so it threw me off. I could be wrong, though.
I live in Canada so I have no idea! I was just going of what I used/was asked for during GA reviews for some of the other articles I have written. I could easily be wrong.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Robert Niles of Theme Park Insider..."is awkward. I think "tolerances" should be used instead of "limitations" (as the source did) and would consider removing the quoted line altogether by replacing it with a clearer paraphrasing of the idea.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The reliability of two of the Youtube videos jumps out as a possible concern. Are those reputable publishers in the industry?
I love it when I'm asked this question (I'm always asked it)! Theme Park Review is a widely recognized amusement related website. The same goes with In the Loop (also known as Coaster Crew). A simple Google search should show you. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is ref 16 a viable link? It redirects but there is a paywall it could be behind. You can use the permit without a link, though.
Are you sure your talking about ref 16. I think you meant 15. The website naturally forces a redirect but I provided the link so anyway wanting to check it out could go to the link, input the info mentioned in the ref title, and be done with it.

This was a fine article overall and is is a bummer that the previous reviews have stagnated. Most of my concerns are minor and I hope previous reviewers pop by to reassert their support if they still feel the sane way.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cptnono: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments above.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article has the most elaborate references I've ever seen. Do we really need three dates in every ref? (The archival and retrieval dates are surely unnecessary when you provide an archive link?) It's also overkill to mention "Government of the United States of America" or "The Washington Post Company" (right next to The Washington Post).—indopug (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: I know it may look weird but I'm just following the rules/guidelines of citations. From what I know, when an archive link is provided, you still need to provide the archival and original retrieval dates.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Great Stink[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A rather small, seemingly insignificant event in the life of London, but one that some of us still feel the benefits of over 150 years later. The Great Stink showed the right man in the right place at the right time, with Joseph Bazalgette stepping forward to build the sewer system to end all sewer systems, providing London with an effluent-free river. And he did it while sporting a magnificent set of whiskers to boot! Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I left my only minor quibbles with it during the PR. Certainly looks to be an excellent account of the ordeal and meets FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your PR work, Doc: much appreciated - and for your time here too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publication names like The Examiner should be italicized in in-text attribution
  • Long quotes like "We can colonise..." should be blockquoted
  • No citations to Dobraszczyk 2008
  • Location for Cherry?
  • Ryan: do you possibly mean Boca Raton, Florida? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • All tweaked and sorted now. Many thanks, as always NM! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another peer reviewer clocking in. My queries there were few and small, all dealt with, and I have found nothing else to quibble at on rereading. The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view. A most interesting, and slightly unnerving, article, which I much look forward to seeing enlivening the front page. Tim riley talk 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Another debt of thanks for your work on this – much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I couldn't help but notice how awkwardly the following sentence reads: "The smell, and people's fears of its possible effects, prompted the local and national administrators to action who had been looking at possible solutions for the problem." The difficulty lies with the "to action" and "who had been looking at possible solutions for the problem" parts. Flipping the order of those two elements doesn't fix the awkward reading, so a more comprehensive rearrangement is needed. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better. Having "action" right after "prompted" makes the sentence read much nicer. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I fixed the link to license on File:Crossness Pumping Station, Belvedere, Kent - geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg at commons, since it was linked to a different image (see edit history). The map has a PD tag saying it was published prior to 1923, but the date on the map File:London County Council Main Intercepting, Storm Relief and Outfall Sewers November 1930, showing Bazalgette.jpg is 1930. Also, how do you know the creator is dead? Other images are either PD old (and appear validly so) or Creative COmmons with clear source and licensing. Please have another editor confirm my review, since I'm too new at this to stand alone. --Gaff (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for the tweak to the Crossness image. I've altered the map licence. Under UK copyright law it doesn't matter about the author, as work done on behalf of an employer or institution ends up with the rights being held by the organisation, not the individual, so as this is now 85 years old, we're clear to use it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Double check.
File:The silent highwayman.jpg - Where's this digitization from?
File:Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water. Wellcome V0011218.jpg - This is technically PD-100, with a CC-BY-4.0 license applicable for reusers in countries recognizing Sweat of the brow doctrine. Might want to update that.
File:A Drop of Thames Water, by Punch, 1850.jpg - Reference that this was published in 1850? Source link goes directly to the image, so it doesn't help. Also, I'd love to have more information on which edition of Punch this was published in. The bibliographic information is somewhat lacking.
File:Dirty father Thames.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 on an image where the artist isn't listed? Also, PD-70 is not enough for the US (where the servers are located, and which we must thus consider as well). I'd also prefer a link to where the digitization comes from.
  • Unsure on the digitised version - it was uploaded in 2008 by a now-retired editor. Any thoughts? (I can find plenty of sources where it could have come from, but... - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I agree. That looks like a Google scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Caricature; Faraday giving his card to Father Thames. Wellcome M0012507.jpg - Original publication? (Punch... what?). Also, my note above applies here too.
File:JosephBazalgettePortrait.jpg - US Tag? Also, and again, how can you claim PD-70 without knowing which of the two people listed took the image?
File:How Dirty Old Father Thames was Whitewashed.JPG - Again, PD-70 doesn't apply if there is no individual author. Also, you need PD-1923 for the US
File:Father Thames introducing his offspring to the fair city of London.jpg - Fine
File:Crossness Pumping Station, Belvedere, Kent - geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg - Fine. BTW, I asked Diliff to have a looksie here if he has time. Trust me, you'd love the results (have I shown you his cathedral pix?).
  • Ive seen a couple of his cathedral ones, and it would be superb if he could do the same for one of the 'Cathedrals of Sewage'! – SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
File:The Prince of Wales opening the Metropolitan Main-drainage works at Crossness, ILN, 1865.JPG - Digitization is from...?
File:London County Council Main Intercepting, Storm Relief and Outfall Sewers November 1930, showing Bazalgette.jpg - Again, PD-70 with no author (and you are, hopefully, not 70 years in the grave, so your contributions are definitely not described by this template). Also, not sure this is PD in the US, what with the URAA. Also, what references did you use when adding the sewers?
  • Any thoughts on the tags for the source map - which is way out of copyright in the UK? - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We'd need to make sure the map is PD in the US. If this were Crown Copyright, its expiry would apply worldwide, but otherwise the URAA comes into play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that local government work is covered by crown copyright. Difficult to check with the LCC as they were dissolved in 1965. Is the best course to upload as a local copy to get round the ridiculous URAA nonsense? (Bearing in mind I'll still come round asking for exactly which tags to stick on that copy too!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Currently Commons is ambiguous on the matter of the URAA (COM:URAA is not as explicitly anti-URAA as it once was), and I'm not sure we've ever tested the waters at FAC for images that are PD in their source country but not the US because of the URAA. The English Wikipedia just considers US copyright law (because the servers are here) and thus the URAA would still come into play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, I meant upload here as a non free. It's probably the most crucial image on the page, so there is more than enough of a rationale to have it (even if "non-free" for an 85-year-old, out-of-copyright image from a body that was dissolved 50 years ago just shows how ridiculous legislators can really be!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Should be arguable, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, Local version now uploaded: I've added a {{PD-UK}} tag on, which I think may be the correct one? - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Current template is okay, but to be fair use it needs a fair use rationale, proper license for the US, and to be downsized — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, a version too small to be of any use whatsoever has now been uploaded (seriously, it's nearly pointless having the image at all if it has to be this small: it tells us sweet Fanny Adam because the detail of the map is lost and readers can't see the actual pathwways of the sewers! I know you're only following the guidelines as they have to be followed, but it is the most unencyclopaedic of policies that we have to comply with: how does the image this small actually help anyone? How can anyone tell what the routes actually are, or through which parts of the city they passed?) Rant now over, and if you suggest which tags should be usedto satisfy the gods of image compliance I'll drop them in there (the rationale is already present). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, there is an alternative... it depends if anyone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop is active. You could send them a copy of the large file, and they could create a free version using an open-access map of London... long term, I guess, but useful. Surprised I forgot about that option. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that - I've added a request there for something suitable.As it may take some time, we will have to go with the too small version at the moment: what US tag should I add to cover the US? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Installation of the sewerage system of the Metropolis Wellcome M0010346.jpg - I personally think the above notes about Wellcome apply here too, but no year for this engraving
File:Embankment Construction of the Thames Embankment ILN 1865.jpg - Author? Source of digitization? More bibliographic information?
File:Portrait of Sir Joseph William Bazalgette (1819-1891) Wellcome M0016460.jpg - Comment above about Wellcome probably applies here.
  • These are my comments... a lot of them are more nitpicky than anything else (the Wellcome double licensing, though most correct, is probably not necessary). The licensing issues and sourcing issues, however, need work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Crisco – and I'm certainly not going to hate you for doing your review properly! (Especially as many of the uploads are mine, which means it's my fault in the first place!) I'll work through these (slowly, as I'm largely dense on these things) and send you strings of emails asking the most basic questions about tagging. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Brief comment – I'll be back with a considered view shortly, but I'd like to refer just now to a point made at the peer review: where did the soubriquet "Great Stink" come from? You couldn't pin this down from the sources. I thought that the name probably came from the press, and this is confirmed by the following, from Halliday's book: " In the months that followed the hot, dry summer reduced the Thames to a condition which the press named the Great Stink". [2] Halliday, p. 71. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this. Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian: I'm not sure which press he's been looking at, but obviously different ones to to the ones I vainly scoured to find it! I'll add now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: Yes, nicely fitted in. I have nothing further to add to what I said at the peer review and am happy to support, on the basis that I am sure you will resolve any remaining image concerns. Please continue to research these fascinating and disgusting topics with your usual diligence. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian: your sterling efforts at PR had their usual impact of tightening the article immeasurably; my thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was reading the article with great interest, it is generally well written and sourced. However, I am confused by whether MWB or MBW refer to the same entity Metropolitan Board of Works, the former appearing five times and at one paragraph, both terms were used. The Metropolitan Water Board (London) was not created till 1903, so either I am missing something here or something is missing in the article. Did the cited source use both terms interchangeably? - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Mailer diablo, You have missed nothing: the error is all mine! (Or, equally likely, the fault of predictive text on my iPad). The body on question is the MBW, which is now the one referred to throughout, following my tweak. Many thanks for picking it up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious (87)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being scrapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review back in December and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I reviewed this for prose at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the elaborate style of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England. It has received a peer review and passed GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a couple of suggestions.

  • I don't really like the end of the first section (the bit about the different meaning of the phrase). Besides being self-referential, it seems somewhat out of place at the end of a section, after hermeneutic style has already been established by the preceding text to have a certain meaning. Do you think it could be added as a footnote in the lede? If not, maybe you could put it at the beginning of that section instead of at the end.
  • I have put it as a note to the end of the definition section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks just right this way, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As a minor point, could you please change one or two uses of "the Continent" to "continental Europe" to help readers who might not be familiar with the other usage (just in case)?
  • In England: "According to Scott Thompson Smith, "Æthelstan A"s charters..." The way the quotes are used here makes it a bit confusing and unclear whether or not it's meant to be possessive. I suggest "According to Scott Thompson Smith, the charters of "Æthelstan A" are..." to avoid confusion and quotation mark strangeness.

Other than those minor points, I can't find anything to criticize. You've done a great job on this topic, which I confess to having never heard of until reading your article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • All images are PD-old or PD-art/PD-old and have sufficient source information - OK.
  • File:Apuleuis.jpg - added some background information to image summary. - OK as illustration. His depiction differs vastly within Commons:Category:Apuleius, but this depiction has some source information to clarify the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much.

Comment

  • fixed some MOS:ENDASH issues in references, I have not checked in-text dashes and hyphens though.
  • "Lapidge 1993" - I'd put the reprint information within the full citation, it's a bit distracting in the reflist. Template:cite book has |orig-year= for such details (see template documentation for usage info). GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. The book is a reprint of essays, and where I cite his view in the article as held in 1975 it is relevant that the essay was originally published then, but I also cite other essays not from 1975. I cannot see a field in the cite book template for a note saying that one chapter was originally published earlier. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's just a suggestion, but I would personally just use the 1993 citation, since you mention explicitly both times it's cited that the opinions are from Lapidge's 1975 essay. Alternatively, if you have the 1975 work, add it separately to the bibliography. GermanJoe may have a better suggestion; I'm not known as an expert formatter by any means.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe @Nikkimaria: has a good idea. I can't remember a case in the past, where "old" reprints and new research were cited from the same book. Noting the original article title (somewhere in the citation) might help to reduce this confusion, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So each essay in the book is from a different time? If so, I see your options as follows: you cite the essay directly as originally published, or you include full bibliographic details for each essay - using either orig-year as GermanJoe suggests, or this method - or you combine the two and go with something of the form (original details. Reprinted in current details). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, is this an entire essay being reprinted or just someone quoting from an older essay?-RHM22 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Never mind; I found it on Google Books. See here. Everything is reprinted from other sources. Nikkimaria, can Dudley Miles use the same citations that are used in the acknowledgements section, to make it a bit simpler?-RHM22 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for everyone's helpful comments. I have been looking at whether I have access to the original 1975 article in the journal Anglo-Saxon England, and so far as I can tell I do not, although I have only just got access to JSTOR and I am not yet familiar with it. I cite extensively from the paper, but I only mention the 1975 date twice where it is relevant. I have thought of putting an efn note with name= against each mention of the 1975 date with an explanation of the date discrepancy. Another alternative is to go to a library which has the original paper and photocopy it. Further comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like this specific article is not in JSTOR (but feel free to double-check) :/. The only journal entry for him in 1975 is "Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum". GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • After some testing this ref works for the situation: "<ref>{{harvnb|Lapidge|1993|p=105}} reprinted from {{harvnb|Lapidge|1975|p=orig. page number}}</ref>". Having this short ref, you can define a separate citation for the Lapidge 1975 article with all "old" biblio info (note: "sfnm" would work too, but doesn't allow flexible additional text between the 2 templates). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joe. Sorry about putting you to trouble but I think I have found a better solution. I have arranged for the original article to be emailed to me so that I can cite that directly. I can add a note to the 1975 source that it is reprinted in the 1993 book. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can cite the 1975 source directly, you don't need to mention the reprint (the original source is actually the "better", more authentic source for referencing). And no worries, I actually enjoy such technical challenges :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs now changed to 1975 source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and commented at the time that it seemed to me of FA standard. I still think so, and the additional images are an excellent bonus. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Giant mouse lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser known group of nocturnal lemurs, closely related to the fork-marked lemurs that recently passed FAC. Everything should be in order, and I plan to do additional proofreads over the coming days. I am also trying to acquire more photos from experts in the field, but I may not be able to acquire anything new until March. – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

Seems like you're still doing some tweaks, so I'll come back in a few days for a full review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tweaks are now done. I just had to do a second proofread and copy edit (to the best of my abilities). I also added new material from an older source that initially I thought had been sufficiently summarized by other (newer) sources. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review - All images are user created and CC-licensed, apart form one, whose author died in 1905. No problems, but potential additional images will have to be checked later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Further comments: (Of these seven specimens, the lectotype was selected in 1939 as MNHN 1867–603, an adult skull and skin.)" Why does this have to be in parenthesis? It is not within another sentence.
I think when I started writing it, it started inside a sentence. Since, it's had the feel of a footnote, and I've wavered on how to handle it. Parentheses have been removed. If you feel it belongs in a footnote, just let me know. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not too fond of footnotes, so keeping it in the article is ok for me. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "similarities with fork-marked lemurs (Phaner), which he considered to also be a member of Cheirogaleus." Fork-marked lemurs is plural, so shouldn't be "also be members of"?
Good catch. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "nd coincidentally gave it the same specific name, coquereli" Why was this name so popular? Who is Coquerel? Would normally be relegated to the species page, but since you mention this fact here, the reader would be curious to know.
It refers to Charles Coquerel. As you said, I was going to go into it more on the species page, but that gets tricky when discussing a genus that until very recently included only one species. I'll attempt to clarify briefly. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Giant mouse lemurs were first described by" Could you make it clearer early on that only one species was known? I thought both species were known early on until I reached the fourth paragraph of taxonomy.
Good point. I've tweaked the opening sentence to clarify. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "They noted a significant difference in coloration between Coquerel's giant mouse lemur" What about comparison with the other new species?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was just saying that this possible new species has different coloration patterns from the other two species. I saved discussing the details for the "Description" section (3rd paragraph), where it was most appropriate to go into details. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You only mention its difference with Coquerel's, not zaza, in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. The sentence in "Taxonomy" says the coloration of the undescribed population differs from neighboring M. coquereli, and under "Description" it tells how this undescribed population differs in appearance from what the other two species look like (in general). I have some details on the coloration for the two known species, but they are only slightly different. For that reason, I only included a general description of their coloration, and was saving the extra detail for the species articles. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I was just expecting something like "They noted a significant difference in coloration between the two known species and the new specimen they observed" or something like that, but not if the source doesn't say to, and only mentions coquereli. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The source says: "according to the researcher Charlie Gardner exhibits 'significant differences in the coloration of its coat from the other two species. The specimen that we observed appears to have a lighter dorsal coloration than is noted for M. coquereli, and has conspicuous reddish or rusty patches on the dorsal surface of the distal ends of both fore- and hind-limbs. The ventral pelage is also conspicuously light in color, and the animal possesses a strikingly red tail, also becoming darker at the end.'" So, yes, it says that it differs in appearance from both known species, but only gives direct comparison to M. coquereli. Basically it differs by having a lighter belly, reddish patches on its back, and a red tail. Sorry—I had forgotten that they mentioned both species and only remembered that they directly compared it to its closest neighbor. I've made the change you suggested. – Maky « talk » 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The caption of the illustration does not mention what species is shown. Would of course be obvious from reading the article thoroughly, but not at a glance.
Actually, that's kind of deliberate. The illustration comes from Schlegel and Pollen, who described their M. coquereli based on the northern species. Therefore the illustration is supposed to be M. coquereli, but is actually M. zaza if they drew it based on their specimens. That's a little complicated to explain in a caption, so I was just making a general statement about giant mouse lemurs and their original description using art from around that time to illustrate. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd explain that fact in the caption (rather than repeating what's already in the article), as it has historical significance in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem there is that it would be original research. I may have sources noting that Schlegel & Pollen described specimens from the north, but I have nothing saying what the lithograph was drawn from. Most likely it's a drawing of M. zaza, but I don't have a source. Thoughts? – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps note that it was not noted which locality the illustrated specimen was from? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've written a new caption, but it was difficult to explain so succinctly. I didn't really have room to discuss the ambiguity over the specimen's identity, but I feel the statement is ambiguous (though supported) enough to get the same idea across. Agree? – Maky « talk » 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Had it been suspected prior to 2005 that there were multiple species?
No, the genera was poorly studied. Even Tattersall and Groves didn't speculate at other species. For a long time, it was just considered to be another type of mouse lemur... though considerably larger. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Anything on when the two species diverged?
Thanks for asking! I went back and looked, only to realize that I had overlooked some divergence dates. Added! – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "young males begin to exhibit early sexual behaviors." What is implied by this?
Done. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a mating system best described as scramble competition polygyny" Perhaps briefly explain?
Done. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do the original descriptions under external links have additional images or info that could be added to the article?
No addition images, and the details were covered elsewhere. If anything, extra details belong in the species article. I provided the links in the "External links" section in case people wanted to see/read the original descriptions for themselves. These original descriptions used to be inaccessible to the general public, and I feel the digital libraries offer a wonderful service to the public. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Graduados[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie (2014)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie in 2014 was the among the strongest Eastern Pacific hurricanes on record, attaining Category 5 status on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. A large system, it had substantial effects along the coastlines of Mexico and California despite its center remaining hundreds of miles away. Six people lost their lives due to the storm and damage in California was especially severe. A breakwater off the coast of Long Beach suffered extensive damage amounting to roughly $10 million. Hopefully you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, with the disclaimer that I did a pre-FAC review before CB nominated it to help clean up prose and such. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Marie_Aug_24_2014_1830Z.png: do you have a link to confirm author? Not seeing it in given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The satellite image in question is a modified version, by @Supportstorm:, of one of the Geostationary satellite images (labeled as GEO on the source) for Marie. The particular satellite used in that image is GOES-15 which is operated by NOAA. Original image can be seen here. Hopefully that clears it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatoful Boyfriend[edit]

Nominator(s): SilverserenC 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a quirky dating sim visual novel involving pigeons as the objects of your infatuation. Originally produced as an indie title in Japan with a hastily made English patch slapped on top of it, the game obtained an online cult following rapidly, which eventually led to it being officially published by a major games publishing company. A real rags to riches story. Involving pigeon love interests. SilverserenC 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose At a first glance, it looks like the vast majority of references are either from the game itself, its creator Moa Hato's blogs or the websites of its developers PigeoNation, Devolver Digital and Frontier Works. Indeed I count only around 30 of the 140 references to be from sources that aren't self-published or primary. Even among those I'm not sure of the reliability of clickbait like "The 6 Most Insane Video Games About Dating", or unvetted, user-contributed content like this or Game Skinny.

Further, the prose is often difficult to read. It is at times overlinked ("severed", "pandemic", "Japan") and interrupted by Japanese-language text. There's also no need of a table for just one item. I'm puzzled why the story for the Bad Boys Love alternative game is ten times as long as that for the main game itself.—indopug (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realised that most of the self-published references is for content that is excruciatingly detailed and uninteresting to read. So you could kill two birds in one stone by severely trimming the Bad Boys Love story, Release history, English localization and Adaptations.—indopug (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that reference #62 points to Tumblr. Is that really a credible source? Singora (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Singora: The Tumblr sources are from the author's own Tumblr (so a self-published source about themselves). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I only got about halfway through, but I'm concerned with what I've read so far.

  • There is information in the lead (attributed to the creator, current ref 5) that is not in the body of the article. I recommend you pull the info out of the lead.
  • The prose in the gameplay section is a little verbose. A lot of this can be simplified (for example: "As the game follows a branching plot line with multiple endings, at various points during gameplay the player is allowed to make choices that determine which character's romance route the player will encounter. " could lose the first clause and just be "The player makes various choices that determine which plot line the game will follow.")
    • I have no idea what "on in-game elective days" means
    • What exactly is "Bad Boys Love"? Is that the name for the scenario with the best friend? [I see that this is explained in the lead, but it needs to be explicit in the body too]
    • I don't like that interpretation "in a departure from the generally lighthearted romantic routes" is sourced to the creator.
  • The plot section is much too long - that should be cut down by at least half.
  • As noted above, a great deal of the text seems to be cited to non-third-party sources or blogs (which will need to be demonstrated to be reliable sources). I can't evaluate whether the Japanese-language sources are third-party reliable source or not.
  • I don't understand why there is a table in the webcomic section when there is only one row.
  • There is no need for subsections in the Adaptations section. Each of those is just one small paragraph - these could be combined easily into a single section.

Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Tillman[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a racist, bigot and killer, who was also a senator and governor of his state, and a non-trivial figure in American history. It's necessary that this article be done, it is a story that deserved to be told better, even if not a story we care much for. Normally I say "enjoy" but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Support – As one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles were dealt with there. This subject is odious, but it is Wikipedia's job to cover vile human beings as scrupulously as we do the good guys. I congratulate Wehwalt on this article: it can't have been fun to write, and it is neutral, well-balanced, and as excellently readable as we have come to expect from this source. Full marks, but can we have a fully-paid-up member of the human race next time, please?

I'll see what I can do in that department. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources review: The sources are all of the appropriate standard of reliability. The one format issue I can find is in ref. 133, which requires a pp. not a p. Otherwise, all in order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I tend to share Tim's sentiments, both about the repellent character of the subject and the quality of the article that presents him to us. My detailed comments are in the peer review, and I have nothing particular to add now. There were probably more Tillmans than Greeleys around in America, in the second half of the 19th century, more's the pity. I'm glad to see that Horace has his star now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for the kind words. I've fixed the source issue, and will undertake to do someone less offensive than Tillman next time. Easy standard to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Great article, I enjoyed reading it. I made a few minor copyedits, but nothing else stood out as needing correcting. One thing that might help: where you discuss the Farmers Alliance and the sub-treasury, it might be useful to link to the system in widespread use that the farmers were reacting against: the crop-lien system. Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment is a good source on that, if you need one. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add that in. As it is discussed, no additional source should be necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubts of Eddie Hugh

I have some doubts about the neutrality and balance of parts of this article. There is a lot of negative content (understandably), much of which comes from one source (Kantrowitz's book), and some of which contains assumptions and/or insinuations. Examples include:

  • "Tillman and his men arrived too late to participate in those killings" (assumption/insinuation that they would have participated).
Yes, they would have. See Tillman 1909 if you want the gory details, but the source here is a fair summation. I'm reasonably certain that the Tillman 1909 reference is where his later biographers get info on his role in Hamburg and Ellenton.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that it's preferable to state that they would have / intended to join in, but arrived too late, rather than hint at it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Democrats were able to suppress the Republican/African-American vote, reporting a win for Hampton in Edgefield County with over 60 percent of the vote. Bolstered by this result, Hampton gained a narrow victory statewide, at least according to the official returns" (insinuation).
Tillman admitted that he and others stuffed ballot boxes. This is not a matter of historical dispute. He went into considerable detail as to how he and others did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, just state that; "reporting a win" and "at least according to" could be expressed plainly (and be more accurate by doing so; and create a more detailed impression of Tillman for most readers). EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tillman and others had a celebratory meal at the home of the man who had pointed out which African Americans should be shot" (what was being celebrated? The insinuation/assumption is the killings.).
Yes. That is what they were celebrating. Have you examined Tillman 1909? This is again not a matter of doubt as Tillman often spoke of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, stating that in the article would clarify the point for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tillman's death generated a large number of tributes to him in the Senate, [...] Blease, who was angry that Tillman was being lauded, and stated that the late senator was not what he had seemed. He wrote in front of the volume, "Don't believe me, but look up his life & see."" (why not mention some of the tributes, instead of implying that they were false? Putting this in the following section might help to reduce the bias of having it at the end of a section and link it with some more positive things that are there.).
The source does not quote from the lauds. I do not think it is necessary for us to go beyond the sources in such a manner. If a reputable biographer does not feel it necessary, how do we second guess? As for Blease, given that he was a white supremacist himself, I am hesitant to put it in the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If they were stated in the Senate, I imagine that they're available somewhere, but it can be left. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The late senator's supporters and protégés lingered long in South Carolina, [...] Others who knew and at one time admired Tillman who persisted long on the South Carolina scene" ("lingered" and "persisted" have negative connotations).
I don't agree with you on this, but will modify the verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Despite being a white supremacist, Tillman as governor initially took a strong stand against lynching" (the "despite" looks like editorializing).
Fair enough. Introductory phrase struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "taken action to prevent such murders, they still occurred, with no one being prosecuted for them" (more editorializing: if no-one was prosecuted, they weren't murders).
I disagree, but will change to "killings".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "With Tillman as governor, "the former Red-shirt faced the mob as head of state."" (another bit of Kantrowitz that is more snide than informative).
As is developed throughout the section, Tillman had a conflict because of his former role as Red Shirt. This is developed throughout the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
But why end the para with it? The fact (former Red Shirt, governor of state) is self-evident from what's been stated earlier; all that's added by including the quotation here is an editorial comment to counter the possibility of a positive tinge emerging from the description of BT's lynching stance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest: a greater variety of sources; some hedging in places by stating whose interpretation is being presented; and giving information plainly to allow the reader to reach a conclusion, rather than leading the reader to a particular conclusion/impression through insinuations.

Unless there are comprehensive sources on Tillman that are being overlooked, I don't see what I am supposed to do about the matter. Tillman has only the biographers set forth. Everything is footnoted. Over two dozen sources are used, including many recent and scholarly articles. I am afraid that to a certain extent, we must take Tillman as we find him. If you note, the first two reviewers seem to be holding their mouths and running in the direction of the toilet because of how fair I am being to Tillman. I will ask them if they wish to comment further in light of your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some other things encountered:

  • Source 2 takes me to a login screen.
Subscription tag added.
  • There's "African American", "African-American", "the African American" and "black" used; avoiding the second one is the current preference, I believe.
That is when used as an adjective, and the article is consistent in that regard. Note the article title, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd spotted a non-adjectival use, but all fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Red Shirts and Reconstruction" is a heading, but there's no description of what/who red shirts were.
Fixed.
  • "Tillman proved an adept farmer" is contradicted by "after two marginal years, the 1868 crop was destroyed by caterpillars" and "Tillman's losses in the agricultural depression of 1883–1898".
Even an adept farmer may suffer problems like that, Remember, the Florida problem occurred when Tillman was 18-20, and the language you quote is later. As for his losses, well, given the nationwide economic problems, losses are not entirely surprising. In spite of the losses, Tillman made himself a wealthy man through farming.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "today Clemson University". Better to avoid "today", as it may change.
I've changed it to "later", though I think it unnecessary. If Clemson University's name changed, I suspect our good editors would go through and change every reference to Clemson.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Charleston News and Courier". Should all of that be in italics?
That is the source.
  • "Even most Conservatives would not support a bolt from the party". "Bolt" has several, diverse meanings. Using a different word would help.
That is a proper political term, which I've used in FA's before, see William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. I do not feel the article goes out of its way to use jargon, nor is there ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I had to look it up. "The act of suddenly breaking away; breaking away from a political party (U.S. colloq.)" says the OED. Fine if the US colloq bit is not regarded as a barrier in this instance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "With the race given control of one of South Carolina's seven congressional districts". I don't understand this; is "race" the correct word?
The legislature gerrymandered as many black voters as it could into a single district. This is made clear in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I was a bit slow. "the race" = "the African American". Going from the definite article form (rather than the plural form) to "the race" threw me. Fine if no-one else hesitated over it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought this awkward, as well, perhaps born of a desire not to repeat the same words too often? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Changed to "blacks".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Inauguration and legislative control" section. The indented quote is shorter than the preceding one that is not indented.
That is true, but the second quote is where he gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll go beyond that, but it's what I offer for now. EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. The bottom line is, you think I'm being unfair to Tillman by such words as "murders". I disagree. No modern source on Tillman is as dispassionate as you would have. Lynching was wrong, and all sources make this clear. Failure to do so in this article would leave me open to charges of being a racist. This is the balance, and I think it fairly respects the sources, of which there are nearly thirty. I assure you, some of the sources are far from dispassionate about Tillman. What more can I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm using NPOV, impartial tone: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" and, from the same page, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Of course lynching was wrong, but how that and other things are presented also must be considered. Reminders to the reader that BT was bad, words that hint at negativity, insinuations rather than plain statements... these actually weaken the strength of the presented evidence 'against' BT: just present what there is and BT's actions will speak for themselves, without leading or commenting being required! EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a PhD thesis, "Benjamin Ryan Tillman: the South Carolina Years, 1847-1894"; and a book by Eubanks, "Ben Tillman's Baby: The Dispensary System of South Carolina, 1892-1915": any use? EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dispensary system probably not. I am searching for online access to the thesis, it is not at a library within 280 miles of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It does not seem to be available online. Given that it is cited by other sources such as Kantrowitz and the ANB, it is something that would be nice to have but I don't consider it necessary. And I checked academic sources through my George Mason University access.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have read this article carefully twice – at peer review and then for the present FAC. It seems to me that Wehwalt has been scrupulously neutral throughout. The suggestion that we mustn't say "murder" if nobody has been convicted cannot be entertained even fleetingly. Wikipedia has an entire article on "unsolved murders", which would be a contradiction in terms if we accepted the novel premise that without a conviction a killing is not a murder. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun as "The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being", and that is manifestly what we are considering here. As to the other points, I am not altogether in agreement with some of the concessions Wehwalt has made in response, but they have not materially damaged the neutrality of the article, which remains impeccable, in my view, and I do not press the point. – Tim riley talk 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting – I used the same definition as my starting point! It's a legal reality that, if there's no conviction for murder, then there's been no murder. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In English law (on which I believe American law is based) the exact opposite is the truth. Nobody can be tried for a crime until it has first been demonstrated that the crime has been committed. See Corpus delicti. But perhaps Tillman or his compatriots changed all that in the United States. – Tim riley talk 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Even following that line, it would be necessary to discover if murder was established at the time, to look at the definition of murder at the time, etc., etc. Much simpler to use the accurate "killings" rather than the assumption-based "murders". My key point remains the leading in how the information is presented, rather than what is presented. On the "murders" part again, "there were claims that the black victim had raped" is in the next sentence. "murders" leads the reader in one direction, which is reinforced by "claims", which is reinforced by the subsequent and (presumably) non-specific "though studies have shown that". All of this content (the what) could be presented (the how) plainly, without leading. I'd hope that part of the collective goal here is to present the life of a saintly pacifist in the same way as the life of a Tillman – that is, leaving the reader to interpret the content to the maximum extent possible, instead of having to interpret the presentation. The changes made so far help towards that end. EddieHugh (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're being too picky on the murder matter, but if you're generally content, let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I add:

  • A bit more on his family would be appropriate for a biography (apologies if it's already there). For instance, he had a son who died in 1950.
    • I'd be interested in this, too, if sources exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro (p. xxvi) to the 2002 edition of Simkins' books states that BT's powers were much reduced by strokes in 1908 and 1910. I don't think this is included at the moment.
I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "but a greater price was paid, electorally and in lives, by the African American". The same author's words were "a most costly price" in the intro mentioned in my point immediately above; does source 2 justify "a greater price"?
Yes, "While he energized the mass of rural white voters to challenge the aristocratic rule of the state by the Bourbon Democrats, he did so at the expense of the state's African Americans." combined with the discussion further above in the article about 1876. I've added the cite from Simkins to more fully justify it.
  • There's a proposal to rename Tillman Hall at Clemson University. I'm not sure of the most recent status of this, but it might be a good idea to monitor it and update the article if/when it does change. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Turned down by the trustees a couple of weeks ago after an endorsement by the faculty senate. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • EddieHugh, this is a useful critique, but I think Wehwalt has gone far enough in making the article neutral. It's always difficult with an odious subject, but I think what's presented in the article mirrors the modern scholarly consensus. You'd be hard-pressed to find any historian alive today who disagrees that Tillman participated in violence and electoral fraud against his black neighbors. I agreed with a couple of your points, as I noted above, but I think to do much more would tip from neutrality into false equivalency. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a tendency today on Wikipedia to call any adjective, any descriptive statement, to be POV. I do not agree with that. We have to take people as they are, warts and all. I think I've gone quite a long way in answering EddieHugh's concerns, with some of which I agreed, some of which I did not and I may reconsider one or two (killings for murder). I think that in substance, I've addressed the concerns. I would ask EddieHugh to acknowledge that in general, the matters that he has brought up have been addressed, or if not, at least seriously considered and reasons given.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have struck out my initial comment on balance, which has been satisfactorily dealt with. To me, the neutrality problem remains, in part. Please see my what versus how comment, above. To stress again, it's not the content that lacks neutrality, but the words that are used to present that content. "claims" and "though", for instance, have been used here to imply, rather than state. Compare something such as 'black people claimed in the first half of the 20th century that they were not mentally inferior to white people, though studies had shown that they scored lower in tests of intelligence'. The content is accurate, but how it is presented (the italicized parts) leads the reader in a particular direction (in this instance, pointing towards what I assume we would find objectionable). My argument is that how we feel about the content/topic/person is irrelevant and that the words we choose should not lead, either to what we find objectionable or to what we find acceptable. EddieHugh (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. While I am happy to work with you on individual instances, I think your intervention has already cleared up any questionable matters. I believe that this article is fair to Tillman. It is factual, and I took pains to avoid casting judgment on Tillman outside the legacy section. I present the 1890 race no differently than I presented, say, Joseph B. Foraker's gubernatorial runs (to use a colleague of Tillman in the Senate). If there are individual instances, I will be happy to work with you on that. But I do believe in the fairness of this article. I do thank you for your review and for feeling strongly about your position. I do believe the best results come from challenges to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A well-balanced article, and neutral to the point of being painful in places (possibly too much, but don't chnage it on the basis of me!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. This sort of article does tend to get one into a reviewer fork.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As you say in you preamble to this review, Tillman was a racist, bigot and killer – and he gloried in these "achievements". To quibble over whether he was a murderer or merely a killer is pedantry. The article seems to me to be admirably restrained in its portrait of this dreadful man; it presents him as the sources do, and there is no need for you to go any further, in the interests of supposed neutrality, in looking for any balancing gloss. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use the "upright" parameter for images that are wider than they are tall
  • File:1890SCGovResults.png: is this based on a pre-existing map? What is the source for this data?
  • File:Von_engelken.png: confused by date given - this is dated to 1916 but struck 1898? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Fixed 2) Removed, as Gamecock's election maps seem to be slowly getting deleted and he's not around to defend them, and 3) Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "... was an American politician of the Democratic Party who was Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...": What do you think of this? "... was a Democratic Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...". That tells us he's American.
Thanks, but I think it would be best to just drop the "American".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Back in a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll stop there for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for doing what you could do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. Continuing.
  • Gary asked, "what white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench"?: If the ? doesn't come right after "wench" in the quote, then saucy wench ...?" is arguably better.
Well ... it's an odd passage. "Eugene Gary, Tillman's running mate in the 1890 campaign, spoke frequently about the need to protect white women from the sexual threat allegedly posed by black men. Gary advocated the segregation of railroad cars, demanding to know "[w]hat white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench." Tillman's white opponents even worried about being outflanked as proponents of this protective, manly white supremacy: a white anti-Tillman audience in Columbia responded to Gary's speech by shouting, "Come off that Tillman ticket.... You ought to be with us."" So almost certainly it is a complete sentence but the question mark is not given in the quote, which is why I put it outside. I suppose I could have put it in brackets.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, in that case, my solution won't work. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Okay, fine edits Wehwalt, we're almost done. The only one that's a problem for me is restoring "Charleston's cherished The Citadel" ... South Carolinians drop the "The" there, and that would work for me, or the workaround I used, or just dropping "Charleston's cherished" would work too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe just drop the "cherished"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "arranged for McLaurin ... to not be re-elected": I'm not sure what that means.
It is complicated, but what it amounts to is that Tillman put in the party rules that candidates had to support the entire Democratic platform (most of which Tillman had written). McLaurin bucked the party line on the question of American territorial expansion, so he could not in good faith sign that he supported the national platform, and so could not run in the primary.
Thank you most kindly for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The only comment I would make to the coordinators is that reasonable minds can differ as to how to approach a person like Tillman, and I think there's consensus that my approach is a valid one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Turkey[edit]

Nominator(s): kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the country named Turkey. This article was a FA, now a GA, and i have completed all the things that has been stated in peer review. kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Only examining references and reference formatting so far:

  • There is a consistent problem where websites are cited by their URL and not their name (or the name of the publishing entity). This is true of nearly all cited websites and needs to be corrected across the board (for a counterexample, the IMF source correctly identifies it as the International Monetary Fund rather than merely www.imf.org).
  • Sources that are not in English need to have their language (generally Turkish, I assume) indicated.
  • Author formatting is not consistent. In the first dozen sources, I see both Last, First and First Last presentations.
  • At least five separate references are to various elements of The World Factbook (reference #2, 5, 193, 201, 250 at this time); all FIVE are formatted differently.
  • Reference 6 (2014 Human Development Report) has insufficient bibliographic information.
  • All ISBN numbers should ideally be correctly-hyphenated ISBN-13 (reference 7 has an ISBN-10). Happily, this is easy to fix. No Wikipedia editor should leave home without the official ISBN converter! At least one book (Steadman and McMahon) is missing an ISBN entirely.
  • Reference 8 ("Turkey in the Balkans") is incorrectly formatted, needs the website indicated properly, and is missing the available publication date.
  • Book sources are not consistent about whether they provide publication year (as with National Geographic Atlas of the World) or precise publication date (Steadman and McMahon). Howard's The History of Turkey has no publication date given whatsoever.
  • Why is this a reliable source?
  • Reference 15 (Köprülü and Leiser) is incorrectly formatted and missing a host of essential bibliographic information.
  • Reference 16 (and others like it) are functionally bare URLs. In this case, that's doubly inappropriate, as it is a Google Books presentation of a print source, and should be correctly cited as such.
  • Reference 17 (Journal of Genocide Research) is not formatted in the same manner as other journal references.
  • Same goes for 18 (Slavic Review).
  • Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source and generally not preferred as a reference at the FA level; if retained, reference 19 is incomplete and improperly formatted.

...and I'm stopping here. There are 317 references. I'm not even 10% of the way in, and I'm struggling to find any that are bibliographically complete and properly formatted. Additionally, browsing over the cited material in general, I feel this article is built primarily upon relative weak sourcing: tertiary sources, government publications, news reports. There are mountains of literature on nearly every aspect of Turkey: scholarly articles and books published by major, respected publishing houses. The FA criteria require that articles represent a comprehensive survey of the literature, and even overlooking the state of the reference formatting, I simply do not see the results of a truly comprehensive survey here. Regrettably (and without comment whatsoever on prose issues), I must oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Alt text is not a FA requirement. It is a matter for individual preference (you could always add the text yourself). Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not required, but it is something all FAs should have. It tells those without images enabled on their browsers and the visually impaired what the image shows. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Irataba[edit]

Nominator(s): Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Irataba (also known as Yara tav, from eecheeyara tav; c. 1814 – 1874), the last independent head chief of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans. He was the first Native from the Southwestern United States to meet a US president; Abraham Lincoln gave him a fancy cane. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Should use upright for the lead image as well, if possible
Two days ago, another user suggested that I remove the upright parameter from all images, so I'm not sure what to do with the conflicting advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As the picture tutorial explains, omitting upright from an image that is taller than it is wide has the potential to create display problems; it suggests using upright=1.0 to obtain the default thumbnail width, which would accomplish what that other user appears to want. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Did this edit fix the problem? I don't know how to add the upright parameter for the infobox image. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed this. To clarify, upright should be used when the image is meant to be taller than it is wide; in other cases omitting the parameter and using default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Homesteader_NE_1866.png: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Also need US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that, but I did add the US PD tag as requested. If this image's PD status is questionable, I'd be happy to replace it, but I'll retain it until you explicitly tell me it should be removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is likely PD, but the tag you have added does not appear to be correct — the image description gives a date of 1886, but your tag states that "it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Can you explain why you selected that particular tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I'm not up on all the different tags, so I picked the wrong one. Can you please point me to the right one? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this one correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that one will work — you might consider removing the life+70 tag since we can't demonstrate that it's correct, and it isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. [3] Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I will have to spread this review over several days. I'll copyedit while reviewing, please treat those as any other edit.

  • Infobox
    • artist's rendering jarred. We don't normally use that phrase for a portrait and this was published during his lifetime. Is there any reason why you have described it so?
      I think the source that I got it from said that. I'll remove it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks. The file source does indeed say that (linked in the file description). It would be good to check the original in Harper's Weekly Magazine, but I have not found it online. Perhaps I was wrong to moan about this... --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Early life and vision
    • [nb 1] is misplaced (talking about "goose grease insead of mud").
      Thanks. I fixed it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • According to historian...: It looks as if some content has gone awol, since this sentence talks about dreams or visions with no previous mention (apart from in the title of the section).
      That's correct. I removed lots of content after a talk page discussion suggested that Frank Waters isn't a good source for encyclopedic writing. I just wanted to at least mention the importance of visions to Mohave, so the article wasn't completely sanitized by Western standards. What should I do? 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      I agree with RHM22 below that the information about dreams does not really belong here. Perhaps you could try moving it to the next section, Adulthood, which in fact is talking about the Mohave tribe rather than Irataba himself. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      Mirokado: Sorry to butt in here, but I'd like to point out that Rationalobserver has removed the bit about dreams for now, until and unless the reference he/she ordered includes information which might suggest that it's relevant to Irataba.-RHM22 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      Ah yes, I see that now. I think I had forgotten to refresh a browser tab. You are welcome to comment if you think it will help! --Mirokado (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Beale's Wagon Road began at Fort Smith...: I imagine it was only called this subsequently? Perhaps: "His journey began at Fort Smith and continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California. (ref) This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.(ref)"
Those are awesome suggestions. Thanks and done! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

More comments later, run out of time tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have several comments about the images. The first, which is what started me looking at them, is arguably stylistic choice, but others are more substantial issues, so I end with a suggestion for changes:

  • The color images, particularly the first, dominate the article visually and detract from the black-and-white ones.
  • The fist and third color images are generic as opposed to those in black-and-white which illustrate specific points made in the article content.
  • A bit fussy, but since I am mentioning problems: the second color image View from Mohave Point of the Colorado River flowing through the Grand Canyon is probably showing air pollution haze which would not have been present in Irataba's time. Also: the caption mentions Mohave Point but the file description says Pina Point. Looking here I see the two are two miles apart.
  • The image Mohave woman by a ramada, or open thatch-covered shelter, c. 1900 belongs to the Early life section where ramadas are mentioned
  • The image A Mohave funeral pyre, c. 1902 belongs to the Disgrace and death section which mentions the tradition of burning body, hut, and belongings.

For these reasons, I suggest removing the color images and moving the two black-and-white images mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are great suggestions, thanks! Completed here Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
And thanks to you for the quick response. The left/right disposition may need a bit of tweaking, that is best done after looking at the article several times, thinking a bit and fine-tuning at leisure. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking of images, I know that Mirokado has suggested alternate wording for the infobox caption, but how about something like "Irataba as depicted in 1864"? I don't like "February 1864", because its meaning is unclear.-RHM22 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    That would work well, I think: good suggestion. --Mirokado (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC
  • Trip to Washington D.C.
    • Perhaps the current note 8 about previous trips could move to the end of the previous section, after "... suggested they bring Irataba to Washington so that he could see firsthand the United States' military might.(ref)"
  • Notes: here I also raise what might be a stylistic issue in the absence of substantial points:
    • The notes contain callouts to references which appear earlier in the article, whereas we are used to looking down to find the references
    • The notes are sandwiched between the references and the citations to which they refer, resulting in more scrolling than necessary.
    For these reasons I recommend moving the Notes section in front of the References section. This is also the order in the numbered list of contents in WP:FNNR which is very commonly used.

I've now read through the article once. You are currently making quite a lot of changes, so please could you ping me when you are ready for me to go through it again? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've incorporated your above suggestions with these edits. I got a new source today, so I added a couple of points from it, but I don't see any significant issues with stability, and I don't foresee adding much more. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad you have now got that new source. No more tonight but I will get back here in a day or two. --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • It is not necessary to repeat the birth year in the lead text after it has appeared in parentheses. (It is quite OK to repeat it in the Early life section though).
  • Early life
    • semi-subterranean: is clumsy. I think "half-buried" might be better? Any other synonym?
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Do we know anything more of that "traditional game played with a hoop and pole"? Is it still played in traditional communities or as a performance piece?

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the first two; thanks for those suggestions. The hoop and ball game is often mentioned, and Kroeber talks about it at length (here). But I'm not sure if it's still played or displayed. I'll look into it. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Why is the current note 1 a note? It looks as if it is directly relevant to the subject and another activity which can be mentioned in the body of the article.

I've read through until the Fort Mohave section with no further comments at this stage. Please respond to RHM22's "Speaking of images" comment above, which has become sandwiched by strikeouts. I'm sorry to do this in such little bits (I'm nursing a broken ankle while back at work part-time), but I'm reasonably satisfied that I will support in the end! --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the note to the article body and changed the lead image's caption as suggested ([4]). Don't worry about the pace; it's perfectly fine. I'm just grateful for your input! I hope your ankle feels better, I broke mine during my basketball playing days, and it was a doozy! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

I learned quite a bit from this article! It's well done overall, but I do have a few comments and suggestions, organized by section.

Lede: "This elicited a stern response from the US War Department, who in..." I think that the War Department should probably not be referenced as a person. In other words, "...from the US War Department, which in..." would probably be preferable.

Early life: "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav, meaning "beautiful bird"..." Maybe you could include "meaning "beautiful bird"" inside parentheses rather than between commas? I think it would help make the sentence a little easier to digest.

Early life: Another point that I must bring up is the quote about dreams here. I know you've addressed it above, but I think it should probably be removed for now, since it has no clear relevance to the subject. If you had some information about how Irataba had some significant dream or vision, then such a quote would be useful in the context of that. However, as it is, it doesn't really belong in this article, regrettably.

Adulthood: Do you think that you could include a sentence or two about Irataba's involvement in these war parties? As it stands now, this section suffers a similar problem as the quote in the previous section. I know that Irataba was a Mohave and that the Mohaves were warlike, but how does that relate specifically to Irataba?

Contact with European Americans: Is J.C. Ives the same person as Joseph Christmas Ives? Some of the chronology of the latter seems to conflict, so maybe not. If it is, he could be linked.

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: "Around 2 p.m. on August 30, the emigrants working near the river were attacked by approximately three hundred Mohave warriors, who let out terrifying "war whoops" as they sent arrows flying into the camp." Where does the phrase "war whoops" come from? Was that a quote from someone involved? If so, could you add something along the lines of "...who according to X, let out terrifying "war whoops"..."?

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: Do you think that the bit about the comet is relevant here? I was thinking that maybe it should be relegated to the notes, since it doesn't really seem pertinent to Irataba or the attack on the party.

Fort Mohave: "...the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing..." how about "...the US War Department established a military fort at Beale's Crossing..."? I just think that reads a bit nicer.

Fort Mohave: "vice versa" probably doesn't need to be italicized, as an expression quite common to English.

That's it from me! The writing is very nice overall, so I don't really have any other suggestions besides the above. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, RHM22. I've made an edit that adopts your great suggestions! Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything else you think I should do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Ok, it looks good enough for me. I'd like to see something in there about how Irataba was involved in the war parties described, but if there's nothing available, then it's acceptable as-is, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, RHM22. I'm not aware of any sources other than Waters that put Irataba in the context of war parties, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I added this, which speaks indirectly to the point. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver: It looks good. Since you don't know of any precise information relating to Irataba as a warrior, I think that what do you have helps to avoid that non-sequitur effect, which sometimes removes the reader from the narrative and makes them wonder why it's relevant. It would still be better if there were some sort of direct correlation, but since you don't have the information to state that explicitly, I'd say it's just fine as it is. Thank you for considering my suggestions and working them into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Today I ordered a copy of a 1970 doctoral dissertation by Fulsom Charles Scrivner that includes a chapter about Cairook and Irataba, so hopefully that source will allow me to tie-in this point and others, such as the importance of dreams to Mohave. Thanks a lot for your review and encouragement! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Great! More good information is always better. I hope you will be able to expand a bit upon his early tribal life. Please ping me whenever you'd like me to come and take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I am striking my support for now, as the article is currently undergoing considerable alteration, per Mirokado's statement above. I will revisit later.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by John[edit]

On first look it's going to be an oppose from me, just on prose. That's without getting past the lead yet. What is a "principle chief"? --John (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, so it should be "principal chief" then. "Principle" and "principal" are different words with different meanings. I think there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article. --John (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm dyslexic, so I sometimes do silly stuff like that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was misspelled even in your comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and opposing "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."(original emphasis) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. If you don't your oppose is meaningless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. The article should not have been submitted to FAC in this state. I recommend a rewrite and a resubmission after this is done. FAC is not the place to have your article improved. --John (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nor is it the place to enact revenge for your buddies! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can everyone please keep this sort of nonsense out of here? John is correct that FAC isn't meant as a forum for general article improvement, although almost all submissions do require touchups before passing. The FAC coordinators will decide how much weight to give reviews and comments, so there's no need for accusations and other claptrap that is better reserved for other sections of this website.-RHM22 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Boson[edit]

The following text could do with rewriting. It's hard to follow who is doing what and why, but it might be easier to prune it rather than clarify details that may not be that important.

In March 1865, he helped defeat the Chemehuevi in response to their allies, the Paiutes, having killed two Mohave women in retaliation for the Mohave's killing of a Paiute medicine man after he failed to heal nine Mohave people afflicted with smallpox. Irataba attacked the Chemehuevi first because they had disrespected the Mohave, and to avoid "a fire in the rear" when he turned his attention to the Paiutes, who were planning an attack on the Mohave farm and granary on Cottonwood Island.

--Boson (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree; that's a twister! Did this edit fix the problem? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Some things still seem a little unclear:
  • Why "helped defeat the Chemehuevi? Since he was the chief of the Mohave, this seems to suggest that there was another tribe involved on the side of the Mohave.
  • I think "in response to their allies, the Paiutes, killing two Mohave women" would be better expressed using finite verbs rather than nouns/gerunds ("response", "killing") and it took me a while before I was sure whose allies the Paiutes were.
  • The reason for attacking the Chemehuevi first seems a little unclear. The logical reason for the timing/order would seem to be 'to avoid "a fire in the rear"', but "because they had disrespected the Mohave" is mentioned first; that might be a reason to attack them, but not necessarily to attack them first.
--Boson (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the input! I've looked at this so many times it's getting harder for me to spot the problems or find solution to the problems I do see. Did this edit fix it? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's much clearer now. --Boson (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark Oliphant[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who played a key role in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II. He is credited with the discovery or co-discovery of deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion. Regrettably, he is not as well known as he should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1: I know this is the format that NLA gives, but it's redundant
  • FN2, 37: title should use endash
  • Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source
  • FN74: ABC is not a work, it's a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the second point. They seem to already use the endash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • They're both displaying as hyphens for me (the latter is now FN36) - I would fix myself but they're both {{cite DOI}} so I'm not sure how to get at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, they probably shouldn't be using {{cite DOI}}, given the message at the top of its documentation page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A gnome went around creating {{cite DOI}} templates at one point. I wasn't happy, because they caused formatting problems, particularly with the author links. Replaced both with {{cite journal}}. And corrected the endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Russulaceae[edit]

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (mostly) The article meets most, or all, of the criteria, depending on the way you look at it. It is certainly comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and very stable. The prose is very good, but I can't say it is exactly brilliant, as WP:FA? states. It is one of these things were I can't give examples, but is just the minute differences between choice of words and way to phrase that make all the difference between very good and purely brilliant. Gug01 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This review is for the second set of criteria. The article has a clear and concise lead section, has appropriate structure, and has a consistent format of using footnote citations. Gug01 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?
This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Book references now all have locations, and websites have publishers as separate parameters. Also added some English translatons of foreign titles, where helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Blackrock (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an independent Australian film that was inspired by the murder of Leigh Leigh (which is a previous successful FAC nomination of mine). Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed (one fair-use). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Deinocheirus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) IJReid (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a dinosaur which was only known from a pair of giant arms since 1965, and remained a scientific mystery until more fossils were described just last year. This setup was greatly paid off by just how bizarre the animal turned out to be; a humpbacked, duckbilled, ostrich-dinosaur... With enormous hands. Since only three specimens are known, their history is described in detail, and all important sources about the animal have been cited. Since the true nature of this dinosaur was revealed so recently, most available images only show the original pair of arms, spiced up with a few additional images created in the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The articles is pretty good, but it needs to be clarified a little bit. A few of the terms may be confusing by some peoples standards. Also, the article does not make clear whether Deinocheirus is an herbivore or a carnivore, though it implies Deinocheirus might be an herbivore. I think that that information should be added. Gug01 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for comment, could you list which terms that need clarification? And the article mentions several times that the animal was an omnivore, therefore neither. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Hypothetical_Deinocheirus.jpg: what is the basis of this image? Same with File:Map_mn_umnugobi_aimag.png, File:TarbosaurusDB.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The first one is based on a skeletal restoration in a 2014 scientific paper, I'll reference it in the file description. The Tarbosaurus image should be based on a skeletal restoration of that animal, but I'm not the author of the image, so cannot point to the exact publication. What do you mean about what the map is based on? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How did the creator know where to put the borders? Was it based on a previously existing map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, IJReid could you take a look at adding the 2014 ref to the restoeration, then I'll see if I can find a more "official" source for map location. Perhaps even a map form a scientific paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Done, although commons doesn't seem to have any more than a single author parameter. IJReid discuss 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I found a much more relevant map in this free scientific paper[5], showing the location of the formation itself, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I have made some copy edits. Change any you are not happy with.
My only concern if whether or not "understorey" is canadian/british english, as the rest of the article is this. IJReid discuss
Thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It appears that Deinocheirus mirificus is the only species in the genus. If so, the lead should says so.
Mentioned.
  • Why is the article about the genus and not the species? The infobox gives the species binomial name, implying that this is the subject of the article.
Well, the genus only has one species so all info about the species is also about the genus and vice versa which is why monotypic genera have a genus not species article. I believe this was decided somewhere. IJReid [[User

talk:IJReid#top|discuss]] 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is an old Wiki Project dinosaurs convention, but dinosaurs are also more commonly referred to by their generic names in the scientific literature, so it make sense here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It is my ignorance, but what do the daggers in the infobox mean? Classifications not officially recognised?
It means extinct. IJReid discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there's currently a very slow moving discussion about those daggers: [6] In short, we don't know what to do with them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1965, a pair of large arms, shoulder girdles, and a few other bones were first discovered" This is unclear. Presumably the point is that the genus not the bones was first discovered at that time.
Added "of a new dinosaur", as it was only declared anew genus later.
  • "Deinocheirus was an unusual ornithomimosaur, the largest of the group" I think clade would be better than group.
Reworded as well.
  • "its skull shape indicates a diet of plants, whereas fish scales and gastroliths were found" Why diet of plants whereas gastroliths? They can be for grinding rough plant matter.
Reworded.
Reworded further, gastroliths are not only used for grinding plants.
  • " have been attributed to Tarbosaurus" A bit more info would be helpful - e.g. "the predatory therapod dinosaur Tarbosaurus."
Mentioned tyrannosauridae, which should be good enough.
  • "The two other known specimens are smaller, the holotype by 6%, and the smallest by 74%" Does this mean that the smallest was an infant? (I see you say below it was sub-adult.)
Mentioned.
  • "The 2014 cladogram suggested that ornithomimosaurians diverged into two lineages in the Early Cretaceous; Deinocheiridae and Ornithomimidae." It may be my ignorance, but I do not understand this. The cladogram appears to show four divisions of the ornithomimosaurians before the Deinocheiridae/Ornithomimidae one. Also why is ornithomimosaurians not capitalised?
added "major", ornithomimosaurians is not capitalized because groups above genus rank are only capitalized when the original Linnaean name is written, such as Ornithomimosauria. IJReid discuss 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as specimens have been found 50 km apart." I do not understand this. Surely 50 km would be an absurdly small range for such a large animal?
For three specimens, might want to ask FunkMonk on this one. IJReid discuss 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The source says "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III". So will add "within the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "It may have competed for trees with other large herbivorous dinosaurs" Why particularly trees and not other plants? Also this comment is repeated below.
Reworded
  • The last paragraph in the article is not about Deinocheirus. I would make it a shorter introductory paragraph in the palaeocology section. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well it discusses contemporaries of Deinocheirus, which is of some importance to the article. IJReid discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is there to put the animal in its ecological context. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: I'm slowly going through this article looking for grammar issues, and it looks pretty good so far. One thing that stuck out to me, however, the use of millimeters and inches (in Description) for an animal that is so large. I fear there may be a disconnect for the reader with a sentence like "The only known skull, belonging to the largest specimen, measures 1,024 mm (40.3 in)". That may be how the description appears in the scientific literature, but it seems overly technical in an encyclopedia for general readers.
Should larger units be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think so, at least for the larger measurements. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this, IJReid? I'm not much of a numbers guy. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, now the smallest unit is cm. IJReid discuss 15:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Despite this concern, the rest of the article is looking good so far. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as the only three specimens found have been 50 km (31 mi) apart." Seems like a mistake. Is there a missing "not"? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also discussed above, it is within the formation, the paper says: "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III,". FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
After this edit, it's more clear what was meant. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Firsfron, long time no see! Will look at these comments later when I get home. And thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey FM! It's very good to see you! I'll do a more thorough copyedit tomorrow, but things are looking good. Keep up the good work. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
One thing I noticed, looking through the article at the images, was the large number of images of those famous huge arms. But this article has no image of the entire fossil skeleton. Are there really no free skeletal diagrams? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No photos yet apart form the skull (which we are extremely lucky to have!), since the new fossils were only described last year, in a non-free journal. We do have a couple of selfmade diagrams, but it would probably be a bit of a copyright problem if we made a skeletal diagram based entirely on another diagram... But I'm sure more free images will be available over time, and there's already extra room at the bottom of the History of discovery section. Otherwise we'll just replace some of the current images (no need for so many casts). FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, there is nothing to be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure something more will show up. On this note, the many arm images are not just for decoration, but also to show them from different angles, in different poses, and to show that the animal is important/famous enough to be exhibited in various museums worldwide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Next up: Some reference tightening. I tried to verify the following statement: "David Lambert supported this view [that the hands of Deinocheirus were unsuited for grasping, but could instead have been used to tear prey apart] in 1983, speculating that the claws could be used for attacking other dinosaurs of all sizes.[1] But the page numbers given, pp. 59–227, are vast. Since the citation is for a single sentence, it is odd that the page numbers are so extensive. You will probably want to narrow down the pagination for verification purposes. No one will want to hunt around through 168 pages to locate the correct info. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Will see if we can find the part of the book online (it is an old addition), otherwise it won't hurt much to just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Can't find anything, should it be removed? Or perhaps someone with Google books access could be asked to check? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Lambert is a popular writer rather than a scientist, and so his theories wouldn't hold much weight in the scientific literature anyway. I think it's safe to remove. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed, didn't really add anything. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I Ching[edit]

Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten this article on one of China's most difficult and storied classic texts. A top priority article in the China, Philosophy, and East Asia WikiProjects. Would be pleased to hear all comments. Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Gaff

There is a problem with citation to Marshall 2001: Marshall 2001, p. 50-66. Harv error: link from #CITEREFMarshall2001 doesn't point to any citation. --Gaff (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed this, thank you Shii (tock) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Image review by --Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To get expert input, I've requested and received some comments on this article via email from S. Marshall, author of [Marshall 2001]. I've already edited the page to respond to his points, except for three:

  • He insists that Zhouyi is one word and not Zhou yi (other sources seem to disagree)
  • He has some complaint with the description of changeable lines; I've asked for more details on this (He has now written back and confirmed that there is no WP:RS that would back up this specific complaint.)
  • He thinks more space should be devoted to how completely modern scholarship has overturned earlier views. I will have to look into this. Attempted to address this here.

Shii (tock) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just now saw that this is an FAC, excuse my tardiness.
I'm not sure why we are paying any attention to what Marshall has to say on this article... He's certainly not an expert on the subject in the eyes of anyone but himself, and I don't think any serious sinologist would cite his work. I'm concerned that Shii has been citing his 2001 work, which I don't think is a wise choice (see David Pankenier's review of this book). I know sinology isn't your main field, Shii, so please feel free to get input on sinological works' validity and reliability from editors like User:Kanguole and myself who are more familiar with that area.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I asked him simply because his email was readily available. As you can see from the resulting edits, he had a number of simple, factual criticisms to make which I generally found were backed up by sources, and I believe the article is better for it. Looking forward to your own comments. Shii (tock) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shii (talk · contribs), I've got some down time at work today and am going through the article making some revisions and comments. I'll post them here when I'm finished, probably just in a large bulleted list.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Textual Review by WhiteWhirlwind
I'm going to do these in bullet form, I hope it's not too difficult to follow along.
  • "The I Ching"
    • at some point in the future this will be needed to be changed to Yi jing, I know a lot of sources still use the Wade-Giles spelling, but no reputable publication would do so in 2015.
      • I am going off the book titles for now, e.g. Redmond & Hon 2014, Shaughnessy 2012, Shaughnessy 2014 all show this is the common name Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "/ˈiː ˈdʒɪŋ/"
    • I've never understood why we consider Random House Webster's to be an acceptable source for (often crappy) pronunciation of non-native English terms. In any case, this should be changed to standard Mandarin "/ˈiː ˈtɕiŋ/".
      • Man... who did this? Maybe I left this over from the pre-rewrite version. Fixed Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph of lead
    • I know I rewrote part of this, but I just want to say this is an excellent paragraph.
  • 2nd paragraph of lead
    • I'd rephrase this to "...produces six apparently random numbers between 6 and 9. These numbers are turned into..." Better flow
  • " of the readings found in the I Ching is the matter of centuries of debate"
    • Grammar error
  • Section headings
    • I'm on the record as against section headings where editors try to get cute and finesse things, like "The divination text: Zhou yi". I try to stick to simple ones like "History", "Content", "Influences", etc. Not a deal breaker, just my opinion.
      • I agree that the section heading might be changed, but FWIW I provided a list of 8 sources that distinguish between Zhou yi and Yijing -- basically all of the sources used in the article. Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "decision-making"
    • Wikipedia editors have chosen to eschew this sort of hyphenation, just space it
  • "the Changes of Zhou or Zhou yi.(Chinese: 周易; pinyin: Zhōuyì)."
    • This is a bit of a mess here. I recommend "Changes of Zhou (Zhou yi 周易)", which is standard in sinology but has traditionally been less common in WP articles. Either adopt my suggestion or just clean up the periods/parentheses a bit.
      • Done. Will address the next two thirds of this tomorrow Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The name Zhou yi means a book of "changes" (Chinese: 易; pinyin: Yì) used during the Zhou dynasty"
    • I mean, not really – it just means "Changes of Zhou".
      • Alternate wording offered Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • " Feng Youlan proposed that the word for "changes" originally meant "easy""
    • Two things here: 1) check and see which is more common, this form or "Fung Yu-lan", I seem to see the latter more often and I think it's the one Feng used in his lifetime. 2) You have no source for this sentence, so if you're not quoting anything either consider adding that this may be influenced by the modern meaning of yi 易 as "easy", which is common in most dialects. If you're going to say something like "there is little evidence for this", you should probably have a reliable citation.
      • The citations are at the end of the paragraph Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Zhou yi is attributed to the legendary world ruler Fu Xi."
    • This phrasing makes it sound like a present day situation. I'd rephrase to something like "The Changes were traditionally attributed to the legendary..."
      • Alternate wording offered Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The basic unit of the Zhou yi is the hexagram (六十四卦 liùshísì guà),"
    • The term liushisi gua 六十四卦 refers to the "64 hexagrams" as a whole, single hexagrams are just gua (as are trigrams).
  • "(彖 tuàn),[note 1]", "The word tuan (彖) refers to a four-legged animal similar to a pig. It is not known why this word was used, and it is possible that it is a homonym for an unknown word. The modern word for a hexagram statement is guàcí (卦辭). (Rutt 1996, pp. 122–3)"
    • I have no idea why Rutt would write this and not mention that tuan is usually glossed as a loan for duan 斷 "decision". (Knechtges 2014: 1881 notes this, I'm surprised you missed it). I haven't found any mainstream reviews of this book, and I've never heard any scholar mention or appraise it as a good work. Not sure I would cite from it.
      • Changed. Rutt is cited as the single best translation by Redmond & Hon 2014, part of a series published by Oxford University Press and the American Academy of Religion. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok, I see. I'm not sure how I feel about that attribution... Hon and Redmond (the latter I've never even heard of, and he doesn't seem to be a great expert on the subject) aren't what I would call Yi experts, and this wouldn't be the first time a major press published a dud. Unfortunately, this Hon and Redmond book only came out in October 2014, and so there aren't any reviews of it out yet. I'm curious to see how the expert reviewers appraise it. My local university library doesn't have this book yet, and I have no quasi-legal e-version of it like I do for many Chinese topics (doesn't leave the room, Shii).  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I am aware of the need to be cautious with these books, but Hon is the author of The Yijing and Chinese Politics: classical commentary and literati activism in the northern Song Period (SUNY Press) which was widely reviewed and cited. The book has received several positive blurbs from Sinologists, here. Shii (tock) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, I saw those reviews on the OUP site. Those are the standard blurbs from author friends, I'm more interested in seeing the published reviews in major journals. Those tend to be more honest.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The book opens with the first hexagram statement, yuán hēng lì zhēn (元亨利貞)."
    • This has proven a very tricky phrase (maybe phrases?) to interpret over the centuries, but I think Shaughnessy (2014) has the best discussion of it. I'd summarize what he says.
      • Will need to go back to the library tomorrow for this. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ", but in five cases (2, 9, 26, 61, and 63) an unrelated character of unclear purpose."
    • You're missing a verb somewhere in here.
      • I thought this was grammatical, but since it's unclear I added a word Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Zuo zhuan and Guoyu contain the oldest descriptions of divination using the Zhou yi."
    • Consider including translations here, like "Zuo Commentary (Zuo zhuan)", or at least a descriptor like "ancient narratives".
  • "In the Zuo zhuan stories..."
    • I think this entire paragraph is unnecessary and should be deleted.
      • I added it because of the long descriptions of "changeable lines" in previous revisions of the page, making me think this was an important topic. You can delete it if you want Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 136 BC, Emperor Wu of Han named the Zhou yi "the first among the classics","
    • Citation needed.
      • This is something I worked on for a while. Eventually I got a good source in Smith 2008. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "and the Shuogua attributes to the symbolic function of the hexagrams the ability to understand self, world, and destiny."
    • This is the first and only time you mention the Shuogua – you'd need to introduce it if you intend to keep this clause in the article.
      • Not sure what introduction is necessary other than "one of the ten wings"? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Japanese word for "metaphysics", keijijōgaku (形而上学; pinyin: xíng ér shàng xué) is derived from a statement found in the Great Commentary that "what is above form [xíng ér shàng] is called Dao; what is under form is called a tool".[44] The word has also been borrowed into Korean and re-borrowed back into Chinese."
    • This probably isn't necessary and can be deleted. I'm not sure that source is reliable, in any case.
      • I think it's a non-trivial explanation of the value of the Ten Wings, but it is a bit wordy and the source is not the most reliable. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The I Ching was not included in the burning of the Confucian classics, and textual evidence strongly suggests that Confucius did not consider the Zhou yi a "classic"."
    • Citation needed
      • Shchutskii 1979 and Smith 2012, as given Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the Eastern Han, I Ching interpretation divided into two schools...."
    • In the following sentence, you need to introduce the two, such as: "The first school, known as New Text criticism, sought to..." and similarly with the Old Text pai.
  • "Only short excerpts survive,"
    • The term "fragments" is generally used in this context in sinology
  • "At the beginning of the Tang dynasty, Kong Yingda was tasked with creating a canonical edition of the I Ching."
    • By whom?
  • "One was the yili xue (義理學, "principle study") approach, which was based on literalistic and moralistic principles. The other approach, taken by Shao Yong, was the xiangshu xue (象數學, "image-number study") approach, "
    • You need to italicize foreign terms like yili xue. I'd actually rearrange like this: "..."principle study" (yílǐ xué 義理學) approach..." The last sentence of this paragraph needs a citation, too.
      • This was added by someone else. It appears to be a confused duplication of the Han section so I will remove it. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1557, the Korean Yi Hwang..."
    • Some title/descriptor needs to go between "Korean" and "Yi Hwang", this reads strangely as is.
  • "...was later taken up in China by Zhang Zhidong."
    • A descriptor like "Qing scholar and official" would be good here
  • Early European
    • This is a nicely written section. Good job.
  • "as described in China's most ancient histories, in the 300 BC Great Commentary, and later in the Huainanzi and the Lunheng."
    • "most ancient histories" is a bit awkward here, since that term is debatable in and of itself.
      • I mean "histories" as in a genre of non-fiction writing... maybe a better term can be suggested? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In East Asia, besides its widespread use in divination, "
    • I believe I mentioned this previously, but Yijing divination is actually not at all common in East Asia anymore, and hasn't been for quite a long time.
      • Indeed, I rewrote the section above it accordingly. I meant "widespread throughout history" but I'll just remove the adjective. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "it had notable impact on 1960s counterculture figures such as Carl Jung, Philip K. Dick, John Cage, and Bob Dylan."
  • " Richard Rutt's 1996 translation incorporated much of the new archaeological and philological discoveries of the 20th century, and it is considered the most accurate available in English."
    • Citation really needed. I almost winced when I read that. I'd delete this entire sentence.
      • Citation is provided, it is Redmond & Hon 2014 Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Translations
    • How did you determine which were "the most notable English translations"? I have an MA in Classical Chinese language and literature and have never heard of a number of these, such as Pearson's weird "feminist translation" and the Wu translation.
      • Various contributors to the article added these. Some list of most notable translations is necessary for an article about a book... Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Of course. I'd stick to the ones Knechtges mentions, including Rutt (1996) ....  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid I've just started a study abroad and can't get access to that Knechtges volume anymore. Would you be willing to clean up the list of translations for me? Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, I can. Take a look at Kanguole (talk · contribs)'s note on the below bullet, if you haven't already.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marshall (2001)
    • I'd recommend deleting this as a source and any references thereunto. I can't find any serious sinological studies that cite it, and David Pankenier's review of it is pretty damning.
      • It doesn't really matter and the source can certainly be removed if the claims attributed to it are unusual, but it is cited in both Redmond & Hon 2014 and in Rutt 1996. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that those two works' citation of Marshall (2001) necessarily carries any weight. There are random Daoist blogs that cite them, too. The fact that Knechtges and Shaughnessy (two vastly more well known scholars than Hon) don't mention it is telling. I'd like to get a look at this Hon & Redmond book so I can form some kind of appraisal of it. I have a basic knowledge of Hon, and the problem is that his specialty is not classical works or philology, it's modern and late Imperial stuff, and that gives me a bit of pause in giving weight to his works on this subject.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Sure, we can put this off until you get a look at the Redmond book -- I think you'll find it fairly discriminate, and I expect positive reviews in academic journals when they do come out. Marshall 2001 is currently used only for the very vague statement about dating the events being referenced to. I'm not sure where to go for an alternate source for that, but I'm sure one can be located. Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
            • I very much doubt there's an alternative source for that, since it refers to Marshall's own hypothesis that hexagram 55 refers to an eclipse observed at the Zhou city of Feng, that this eclipse occurred in the year of the conquest of the Shang, and that this was an eclipse known from astronomical calculations to have occurred on 20 June 1070 BC. No-one else seems to take this seriously. Pankenier's review demolishes the argument, and most authors now favour a date of 1046 or 1045 for the conquest. Kanguole 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
              • Kanguole (talk · contribs), White whirlwind (talk · contribs): I've removed all references to Marshall, replacing them with Shaughnessy where appropriate. Hope this resolves the certainly legitimate concerns you've raised. Shii (tock) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
                • You've kept The Zhou yi itself shares some of its features with even older Shang dynasty analysis of oracle bones. I didn't see this in Shaughnessy 2014. He does mention that some oracle bones associated with the predynastic Zhou include groups of 3 or 6 numerals, which several scholars link to the trigrams and hexagrams, but I see no justification for a link with Shang divination. Thus illustrating the section with an image of a Shang divination is also misleading. Kanguole 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • I was basing this off of the following specific statement: "although there were numerous developments in the conduct of divination, certain features remained constant throughout ancient Chinese history and the various media used to divine." Shii (tock) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
                    • The quoted statement is quite vague, but from the discussion in that chapter, it appears that it refers to the religious context and purpose of divination. (Though I'm not sure whether his claim that the Shang oracle bones were prayers rather than questions is the consensus view.) I don't think it supports this sentence, which appears to suggest a connection between the Zhou yi and the procedure of Shang divination. In any case, we shouldn't be citing broad statements like this without context. Kanguole 13:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope this has been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose>Comment

My objections mainly because the "Influence" section is too short, I understand there's a main article I Ching's influence, but that article aloso had same problem, far from what it's should be, and lot sentence without source. Also I have some concern about the selection, I mean why Carl Jung listed, according to the article I Ching's influence, "Psychologist Carl Jung wrote a forward to the Wilhelm–Baynes translation of the I Ching", also no source to follow, I just feel that wrote a forward to some translation doesn't count for "notable impact", we don't know what he wrote, and how's I Ching really impact his life, his professional or personal opinion.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Jarodalien: Please note that this is not an FAC for I Ching's influence but for I Ching. I have expanded the "Influence" section and added a quote from Jung, is this what you wanted? If not, please be more specific. Shii (tock) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is not FAC for I Ching's influence, so just like I said before, "mainly because the "Influence" section is too short". Meanwhile, normally sections with {{main}} template, means this section is only an epitome for that article, just like lead section. But even when I consider this, this section are still too short. For example, I think it should mention the influence for divination, at mainland China, there's been a long history for people using I Ching to predict their future, choosing graveyard, homestead, (influence with Feng shui), even their spouse (with influence of "Bazi", calculate by people's birthday and exactly time), those influence also effect other country or continent. For as far as I know, there's still least tens of thousands people practicing Hexagram or Bagua for living (for a street that 3 blocks from my home, there's least 15 blind people do this, because some people lives here believe, when people lost their eyesight - normally born that way, cause by accident doesn't count. - for somehow they could open "another eye" to look into your future). My English is very poor, hope doesn't cause any misunderstanding.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Between you and White_whirlwind, who says the I Ching is no longer widely used in China, opinion is evenly divided. I have found it best to remain silent when the sources have so little to say about modern use of the I Ching. Sorry this makes you reject my work entirely. I wish I could find something better to say in that section. Shii (tock) 07:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about my opinion makes you feel that I "reject" your "work entirely", so I switch to Comment, hope that helps. Maybe I Ching "is no longer widely used in China" like used to be, but their influence still strong, especially places less developed. Maybe I feel this way mainly because I live here, like we had a old saying "当局者迷", means when someone get involved, there's big chance they couldn't seen the whole picture. So, this is just my opinion, you already done a excellent job to writing this article, I only feel there's some place could been better.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally think your anecdotal evidence makes perfect sense. In Japan, blind people have similar social roles. I just can't find a good source to attest to it. I will keep looking... Shii (tock) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

This is done, except for the hexagrams, for which I'm not sure alt text is possible Shii (tock) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

SMS Dresden (1907)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another German light cruiser, this one joined von Spee's squadron following the outbreak of WWI, and it was the only survivor of the Battle of the Falkland Islands in Dec. 1914. This ship was eventually tracked down and forced to scuttle at the Battle of Más a Tierra on 14 March 1915. You might note that the centenary of the sinking is a little more than a month away - I'd very much like to have the article through FAC in time to run on the centenary if at all possible. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (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. Parsecboy wanted to go ahead and nominate this, since an anniversary is coming up ... and that makes sense to me. All issues have been dealt with at A-class, and I expect it to pass A-class shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Now passed A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of prose issues Support: all the issues below have been addressed. They cover everything I found right to the bottom of the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Nothing serious, but a few things stuck out.

  • "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden")[a] was the lead ship of her class, built for the Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine)."
Are we putting the translations to English in the parens, or the German? The rest of the article puts English in the parens, so I'd suggest the same here.
A good catch - I had forgotten to fix this when I rewrote the article.
Generally I found this statement to be a bit odd. Is it no more like "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden")[a] was a German Imperial Navy ship, the lead ship of her class."
Yeah, that's a good point - see how it's worded now.
  • "She had one sister ship, Emden."
Could this be combined with the former statement? A two-ship class doesn't seem to deserve three links.
Just cut it altogether - it's really not all that relevant to this article (or at least shouldn't be in the lead).
  • " twelve coal-fired Marine-type water-tube boilers."
Is Marine a proper name? If not, should it be lower case? Is this referring to the Kaiserliche Marine, and thus a specific type? If so, I'd like to see a link here, or some explanation of what it is.
Another leftover from the old version - Gröner always refers to them as Marine-type boilers, which seems to have been a translation error - it should probably have been translated as "naval boiler" (which basically means water-tube boiler)
  • "Dresden thereafter joined the reconnaissance force"
then instead of thereafter?
Sounds fine to me.
  • "She made it back to Kiel, where repairs were effected.[6] The repair work took eight days"
She made it to Kiel where she spent the next eight days being repaired."
Yeah, I wasn't really fond of how that turned out, but when I was writing it I couldn't think of a way to split the sentence for the citations, as the NYT article covered the fact that the repairs were in Kiel, and HRS covered the length of time it took - see how it's worded now.
  • "Regardless, von Spee and those who favored the attack on the Falklands won the argument.[32]"
There are five ships and four captains (three plus admiral perhaps?) have been mentioned. Am I incorrect in thinking "those who favored" means the captain of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau? I found this bit a little confusing.
A good point - yes, the captains of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the ones who supported Spee in attacking the island.

That's it! It makes for exciting reading. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed.
  • Some of the images are a bit small to use at default size - can we enlarge them?
    • I have my defaults set at 300px - which ones in particular were you thinking?
      • The line drawing and the first two maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I forced the line-drawing and the second map to 300px, since those both looked fine on my screen as is, and the first map to 500px - how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Dresden_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
    • Cut the dead link - the citation to Jane's has been improved and should be sufficient.
  • File:Escadre_allemande_d'Extrême-Orient_1914_1915-de.svg: what is the source of the information presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images (only one currently has it). -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

John[edit]

Why was the article moved over into American English? This version seems to use UK ("metres") and thus WP:RETAIN would suggest keeping it there. --John (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The first version had "paralyzing" instead of "paralysing", which is AmEng. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that. The language of the guideline has the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default (my emphasis) and I suppose it's a judgement call what constitutes a stub. I wouldn't oppose over this I don't think. I am still reading the whole thing. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no real hard-and-fast threshold for where an article becomes Start-class, but the limit for DYK is 1,500 characters, and the initial version was slightly over 2,000. WP:STUB says "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text..." - which the initial version easily surpasses. Thanks, John. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I made a few slight adjustments. I may have a couple of questions before I support. It is looking good. --John (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Question Why are we capitalising and italicising Maat? --John (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't need to be capitalized, but it's not commonly used in English, so it should be italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd agree with that, and I think it looks far better now. There was one other thing I wanted to ask but I can't remember what it was. It can't have been that important. I now
Support. --John (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • Convert meter ranges to yards, not feet.
    • Good catch - though I left the second one since depth is usually measured in feet.
  • When I was researching the Otranto article, the biography of the ship that I looked at made no reference to any hits on that ship, despite German reports. There's also no mention of any hit in the ship's log.
    • Added a bit to clarify this.
  • Still like to see some references to the Warship International article on the hunt for the ship that I mentioned earlier.
    • Yeah, I don't know that I'll be able to include it given the very short time-frame - I put in the article request but we'll see if I get it in time.
  • Suggest combining these two sentences: Meanwhile, the Royal Navy had deployed a pair of battlecruisers, Invincible and Inflexible, to hunt down the German squadron. The British ships were commanded by Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee.
    • I think John fixed this in his copyedit.
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, considered an artistic pinnacle of thrash metal. The band would experience increased popularity afterwards, becoming heavy metal's leading act in the 1990s. This record is subject of many musical analysis about the roots of extreme metal and its further development.--Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I'm not much of a music guy, but I recall being impressed by this article when I first encountered it (at DYK?) and it's only got better since then. I made two entirely trivial edits. The prose is wonderful; like the last time I read it, makes me actually want to listen to a metal album. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal

  • I think the intro should mention some of the most notable tracks
  • "in 2006 by playing it in its entirety." → where? during a single concert?
  • "musicianship" is this a real word?
    • Yes, it is—it means the technical quality of one's playing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "on signing Metallica" mention year
    • You mean when Alago signed the band? 1984, mentioned in the background.
  • "The original artwork was sold at Rockefeller Plaza, New York City for $28,000" when?
    • In 2008, added.
  • "The album was recorded with the following equipment:" if you use ":" why is everything after it split by "."s?
    • Corrected, used semicolon instead.
  • "in the sense of "assault and battery"." says who?
  • "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot?
    • Compared to today's mainstream music, incomparably faster.
  • "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean?
    • Off–kilter means unbalanced or awry. Bar measures a small amount of time in written music.
  • " two-and-a-helf "
    • Corrected.
  • in "Music and lyrics" why did you have each paragraph cover 2 songs instead of 1? also, this section should have linkers like "the first/second/third/nth song"
    • Largely because the songs are not equally covered. You have "Disposable Heroes" in three sentences and "Battery" in five, so I tried each paragraph to contain similar quantum of information.
  • "1986 is" never start with a number
    • You mean the sentence shouldn't begin with a year? I've seen many FAs with sentence structures such as this.
  • accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together
    • The publishing dates are visible in the reference templates. I think mentioning them in the prose is going to make the text tedious.
  • "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo
    • I decided to omit receptions such as "favorable/unfavorable" because they seem variable from reader to reader. Spin, Rolling Stone, and BBC Music don't feature ratings, and that's why they are omitted from the table.
  • the last part of the 2nd para in "Commercial performance" should probably be moved into the accolades/critics section
    • Could fit there, but since it discusses the impact of "thrash metal's first platinum album", it's per se connected to the commercial performance.
  • this section could perhaps list the countries where the album ranked
    • The countries are listed in 'Charts'. It would seem repetitive listing them on two places.
  • "Metallica Through the Never" mention year pls
    • Year added.
  • "crosses were rising from the stage during the song" → add reminsicent of the album's cover art
    • Done.
  • "after having been retired for a number of years" why? I thought that MoP is by far one of the most popular of their songs
    • "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired, "Master of Puppets" was performed in shortened version.
  • charts list seems a bit surprisingly short imo. any year-end charts?
    • You have the positions per year in this diff. The album wasn't a notable commercial success in its initial years, but gained recognition after 1991.

Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Image check. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets cover.jpg has an acceptable non-free media rationale. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets.ogg and File:Metallica (1986) Welcome Home (Sanitarium) sample.ogg seem acceptable as well; I think that 3 is a bit borderline with the "minimal use", but acceptable. File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg has an acceptable licence in Flickr, which has been already reviewed in Commons. Article check will follow. Cambalachero (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • More comments by Cambalachero: I will check section by section, and leave the intro for the end (as it must be a summary of everything else)
    • Background and recording section: I don't think that "musicianship" is the right word for that context. If it is the technical quality of the music, then it can not be "aggressive"; that's the style, not the quality (thrash metal, as any other genre, has good quality and bad quality performers). All the sentences with maintenance tags must be fixed. "Metallica was motivated" is a bit wordy, and lacks a reason: I would expect a sentence using that word to clarify why or what motivated someone to do something (if they wanted to make a well-received album just for the heck of it, then you may use the verb "want"). "Hetfield and Ulrich described the songwriting process as starting with "guitar riffs, assembled and reassembled until they start to sound like a song".": all quotations must have a footnote immediately afterwards. Question: did Mustaine tried to sue Metallica for the rights of "Leper Messiah", the logical consequence of his claim, or did it stay confined to things said to the press? (if it's the later, then it's fine as it's written). "and decided to record" is wordy. "Hammett recalled that the group was "just making another album" at the time and "had no idea that the record would have such a range of influence that it went on to have".": again, immediate reference after quotation. "The cover was designed by Metallica and Peter Mensch [add a comma] and painted by Don Brautigam" Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • First of all, thanks for the suggestions. I think Mustaine has not sued Metallica for using ideas of his own because those things are legally hard to prove. He hadn't done that with "The Four Horsemen" vs "The Mechanix", which is a more obvious copyright violation than this one. Summa summarum, it's just a speculation. I understand "musicianship" as a style of playing/performing, in our case, "aggressive" performance. I'm little puzzled by the "cn" tags because every information is sourced. For example, the first two sentences are sourced with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame biography, including the "aggressive musicianship and vitriolic lyricism". Instead of repeating the cite at two places, I used it at the end of the second. Other notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Mustaine couldn't have sued over the earlier songs, because he's credited for them and thus gets royalties (he couldn't legally block them from using the songs). With "Leper Messiah", assuming his claims are true, he'd have to have some kind of proof—a demo recording or something. If he doesn't, then all he can do is bitch in the press, which he sure loves to do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know that he's credited and receives royalties for his first songs with Metallica, so there's nothing to complain about (he's not the first guy who left a band and left behind songs written for it). That's why I asked about Leper Messiah, as being the uncredited author of a song sounds like something that could start a legal battle, if it could be proved; and if such a battle took place the article should have talked about it (featured articles must be comprehensive). But, as said, if it didn't go beyond the press, the current coverage is fine. As for the tags, I really don't understand what does "Metallica hired Q Prime's Cliff Burnstein and Peter Mensch" mean. What is Q Prime? It is not clear from the context, and I don't think it has anything to do with Star Trek... Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Music and lyrics" section. Comments such as "were considered" or "were praised" must detail who thinks those things. ""Battery" is about anger and refers to "battery" in the sense of "assault and battery"", can we rewrite that sentence without using the same word three times? It may be better to link Cocaine dependence than just cocaine, as it's more precise for the context. Cambalachero (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Brock Helander is the one who praised the lyricism for its honesty. I could credit him in the prose, but it will sound trite. A search on Google Books will offer you many critics who spoke positively on the lyrics. I could mention the author if you insist, but that would hardly be of any interest to the reader.
  • "Critical reception" main section, I did not notice any problem. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that, but the credit there goes to Dan56.
  • "Accolades and legacy" section: you mentioned Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax, and then said "these bands were being called the "Big Four" of thrash metal". Perhaps it is evident from context, but you should clarify that the fourth one is Metallica. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Clarified, mentioned Metallica along with the rest of the big four.
  • "Commercial performance" section: "Master of Puppets became thrash metal's first platinum album and by the early 1990s it successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal." Are we talking about Master of Puppets, or about Metallica? As for the early 1990s (not the mid-1980s), if I remember well the bands that "successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal" were bands like Pantera and Biohazzard, which redefined thrash metal even further; Metallica's black album was a huge success, but not one that redefined the whole of heavy metal as "Master of Pupets" did. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Corrected. The author meant that thrash metal as a genre redefined mainstream heavy metal in the early 1990s, not solely this album or Metallica.
  • "Touring" section: There is a contradiction with the article about Cliff Burton. Here, it says that the driver was charged with manslaughter, there, it says that the driver was determined not at fault for the accident and no charges were brought against him. Which one was it? Besides, you may add File:Clifford Burton Memorial Stone At Crash Site.jpg to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The driver was accused for the accident, but the court found him not guilty.
  • "Live performances" section: add a reference for the claim that "Master of Puppets" is the most played Metallica song (does someone keep the track of those details?) Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Does the band's website counts as an appropriate source? I know it's primary, but it's the best one I could found on Google.
  • Lead section: "Many bands from all genres of heavy metal have covered the album's songs, including tribute albums." This seems something interesting to talk about, but it not mentioned later in the article. Perhaps you should add a new paragraph at the "Accolades and legacy" section, talking about this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This is likely based on the 2006 edition of Kerrang! ('Accolades and legacy') in which the album was covered by a variety of bands.
      • Metallica was motivated by fans and critics expectations to make successful album. I wanted to ask something: Is it obvious (from the context) that Cliff Burnstein and Peter Mensch are managers working for Q Prime (record label)?--Retrohead (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've walked these halls, but let's give it a whirl. My main area of concern with this article is how accessible it is to the layperson. The GA review, which was a while ago, was carried out by another editor with good knowledge of cricket. I think I at least have provided sufficient wikilinks to help with this, but I'll let you judge for yourselves. This is a potential WikiCup nomination. Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

On first read through, this looks comprehensive and well written. Some comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • There is a lot of overlinking, particularly, but not exclusively, of players' names. I suggest running the script
    • Done, I think there is only one left, which I prefer to leave for clarity. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • At least one ref, 33, lacks a publisher
    • Fixed this. Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the point of redlinking previous final contest in 1993.
    • I was hoping it would be a blue link by now, but I haven't got to it! Removing the red link from the lead, but left it in the later section. Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that either "top-scored" or "recovered the innings" are grammatical
    • I have replaced these, hopefully the replacements work! Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've addressed the (easy) two, and will have a look at the others later, when I've got a bit more time! Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No rush, it will give me time to find more nitpicks (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite losing regular wickets—I think you mean "Despite regularly losing wickets" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with "Australia lost regular wickets" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Good points, both changed. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You switch between numbers and words for wickets eg "205 for 5" but "201 for five". stick to one style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Nice spot, it should all be consistent now. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • first team of either gender — "gender" applies to words, not people. Should be "of either sex" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Didn't know that. Fixed. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No further queries, so I've changed to support above. Nice to see an article about women's sport, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick first run-through comments from TRM

  • The prose in the lead is somewhat repetitive, and I understand why, but repeating "women's cricket" three times in two sentences is a little too much for my taste.
    • I don't disagree, but I'm unsure what to do about this to be honest! Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " first on foreign soil" isn't this a shade tabloid?
  • Our article on Nicki Shaw has her as "Nicky Shaw". Plus be consistent.
    • Sorted; weirdly, I wasn't even aware it was sometimes spelt "Nicki", who knows what I was doing when I wrote that! Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Could link "toss" to coin flipping.
  • "scored the most runs for" would prefer "was the highest scorer for"
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link ball to delivery (cricket).
  • Is it "Player of the Match", "player of the match" or "Man of the match"?
    • I think I have consistently used "player of the match" in the prose, although I appreciate that the infobox uses "Player of the Match". I'm not aware of "Man of the match" being used? Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "traditional rivals" a quote, it seems like it might be so quote it. If not, it's a little OR.
    • Personally I think it is a bit OTT to require inverted commas, but I have placed it within them nevertheless. Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "of only 34 runs", "eased to a total " it's a tough one, but saying things like "only", "eased".... turns this from an encyclopedic article into a sports report...
    • Journalese is a weakness of mine. Tweaked those examples. Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link "spin bowlers".
  • "Marsh took a career-best five wickets" any thoughts on linking to a "Five-for" at the Glossary of cricket terms here?
  • Consider finding a link for "run-rate".
  • "England's following match was against the West Indies, and they once again surpassed 200 runs after batting first." be careful with these sentences, I would suggest it's ambiguous who "they" are.
    • I see what you mean, but don't the sentences around it provide enough context to eliminate that ambiguity? Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " the run scoring" why not stick with run rate?
    • Who knows, changed. Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "Build up" section, there's an odd selection of whether to link the year or not, final or not etc.
    • Removed the red link for 1993. The use of final or not makes sense to me, but I can stand to be corrected. Harrias talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • New Zealand Herald should be The New Zealand Herald.
  • You didn't add (ICC) after the first use of International Cricket Council.
  • Ref 23, "Wisden Cricketer's Almanack" should be "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack".

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Forest raven[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a familiar Australian bird...well not that well-studied really. While buffing up its relative (Australian raven) which is a featured article, I read alot about the forest raven. The article is shorter as less is known, however I think it is pretty comprehensive and can't see anything else to improve. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cas—can you note whether this will be a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - images are free, sample of accessable refs check out. Prose are tight, generally good to very good; have gone through with a light ce. A fine, well sourced and informed article. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thx - all good, just had to flick back one bit which causes confusion as "Australian raven" is only one of the three species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Corvus_tasmanicus_map2.jpg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you would like a different/better map, with clear sourcing, let me know. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I might have a crack at will be redoing the map actually. I've done it for others. And adding the consensus distribution and ref. thanks for offering. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
update- have found a map of southeastern Australia and added range onto it. In article now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments from Gaff[edit]

Looks good overall. Most images are from one source, who may or may not be expert on bird identification. Given your report that there are no other corvids on the island, shouldn't be an issue. --Gaff (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • * I fixed the Stresemann citation, since "date=The Auk" seemed an idiosyncratic format.
  • Should the species synonyms be in the infobox?
Yes, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First read through, the second paragraph of the taxonomy section was confusing. I wasn't sure if we were talking about the forest raven, using synonyms, or other birds in Australia and Tasmania. Second read through, I get it. Maybe some copyedits here could make this section more clear. It is a confusing story, for certain, and you have done a great job getting the details in there, but there might be a way to make it flow more smoothly.
Have been looking at this - how's this then? I have switched the order of the first two sentences, so the para begins by pointing out that it is difficult to tell teh difference, which then helps explain why Gould only described one species initially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Capitalization for little and Little raven is inconsistent. The first mention of Little Raven cannot be wikilinked as currently written, because it is split up "incorporating Little and Australian ravens". Consider rephrasing to allow an early wikilink in the text. I also like when the binomial is given with common name. That is how you (or somebody) did it in the little raven article: "little raven (Corvus mellori)" and "Australian raven (C. coronoides)". I don't know if that is a rule or just personal preference, but the scientist in me likes to see binomials.
Little should be lowercase here, was missed after the capitalisation wars. I've oscillated between listing binomial names alongside common names in articles. There are a few to add.....will do shortly and see how it looks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • C. cecilae is mentioned but not linked. Was this name subsequently discarded altogether? Please clarify.
It is the Torresian crow, though now it is Corvus orru Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Maybe instead of "C. cecilae (crow)" you could link as "C. cecilae (crow)"? Looks odd that only the word crow is linked. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think its better to list the name as I have done now - "crow" is not what is meant so spelt out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please spell out acronym IOC, as nonspecialist will not know what that is.
I have unabbreviated it to International Ornithological Committee Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems odd, "As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely." Do you mean as the climate changed, it led to a split?
Yes, added "as the habitat between became inhospitable" hence leading to long term separation of the populations. Is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "wingspan between 91 and 113 cm " conversion needed? done. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much going on in this sentence? "Sexes have identical plumage, however the male is generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals." Maybe "Sexes have identical plumage. Males are generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals."
  • "blue-purple sheen" is it iridescent? Iridescence is a wonderful word.
Well, yeah, but "blue-purple sheen" is fewer syllables and means the same thing ..also never seen the word "iridescent" used with corvids.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough! --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The progression of eye color changes with age is perhaps given in too much detail in the lede. Consider shortening it there and keeping it long in the body of the article.
trimmed in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Use {{convert}} template on "The gap between the two populations is around 70 km, shrinking to 30 km at Dorrigo."
  • Wikilink "Mount Wellington" ??
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "sclerophyll forest" wikilink
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The map definitely needs improvement. Sounds like you are already on it. I would like to see the different populations mapped out.
  • "areas of 40 to 400 hectares have been recorded" -- unit conversions needed? Not sure on that one. I can check if you don't know.
to acres. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no wikilinks in the entire first paragraph of Behaviour section, though some bird species mentioned for first time.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does it matter that the citation style is inconsistent? <ref name="" />in most instances, then {{sfn}} in others. --Gaff (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I only use sfn for individual different pages or page ranges from a book, otherwsie we end up with an unnecessarily complex reference section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Makes some sense. I may ask you more about that in the future, for articles that I am building. --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Relict raven redirects to Forest raven and is a common name for Corvus boreus source. Might be something to add, if not already there (I'm short on time right now, but see you have covered some of the Rowley work from 1970). --Gaff (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There are still a few minor fixes still on my laundry list, which may or may not be helfpul in improving the article. There is also the discussion below about what exact detail should be in the lead and particularly the first sentence. In my opinion, that is a discussion perhaps best held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds so that some overall guidelines can be reached. The current verbiage is in keeping with Featured Articles on similar species (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase). I am a newcomer to FA review, so the delegates will want to consider my vote accordingly. I have spot checked only a few references, but seemed okay. --Gaff (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury[edit]

This is really very minor, but now's the time to address it. I have found that many articles on the wiki add meaningless jargon to appease a certain technical faction. In this article I can see this in the very first sentence, which contains the statement "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae". I don't think the target audience gives a crap about these two definitions, yet will be tempted to interrupt their reading to click-through to ensure they're not missing something important - and they aren't. These terms may be important to some bird nerds, but such stuff belongs in the body or sidebars and I suggest removing it. That's the first sentence, I'll give it a better read-over later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Just my 2 cents...In many instances, I completely agree that ledes are over detailed. (See also: "Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes") I do not think, however, that "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae" is overly detailed. Just my bias, maybe hypocritically so... For comparison, I looked at the first 4 of the 137 featured bird articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase and all have something similar. I'm only a minor bird nerd, having looked through a handful of field guides and read two books about crows. Even still, knowing passerines and corvids informs this article without creating too much distraction. But I can see your point... --Gaff (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, it's a fine line we tread withj jargon and accuracy. For instance, I'd love to change "corvidae" to "crow and raven family", however that loses accuracy (and I have been corrected previously) as the family contains jays, northern hemisphere magpies and nutcrackers. "passerine" is pretty broad and I think one linke to corvidae is not a big deal, especially when it says "family" right before it, so the reader who doesn't know the phrase gets an idea its a group of related organisms. I do want to eliminate as much jargon as possible though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So this is a type of crow, right? Is there any reason to be more specific than that in the lede? We have a whole body to be specific in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
we-ell it depends...do you consider to be a raven as a type of crow? or are both of equal "rank" as it were? A bit like horses and ponies really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)\
Precisely. And we have an entire article to flesh out that definition. And why do we still have the entirely useless term passerine in there? We may as well say it has wings. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
OTOH, I'd find it pointless to say "The forest raven is a bird" as that is patently obvious, and feel that "passerine bird" is more exacting and more educational to the reader as it helps define the critter more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Passerine bird" is not more exacting - a classification that includes half of all birds is less exacting that "raven". Your argument is precisely the sort of problem I'm talking about, jargon because it seems cool to include jargon and sound smart, when doing so actually lowers the readability of the article. I'm not talking about replacing this word with that, I'm talking about removing it all. If the reader can't figure out that this is an article about a bird, having them click through to passerine isn't going to fix that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Casliber here, it has nothing to do with "being cool" (why the weird accusations?) but is about accuracy. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, therefore info about classification has to be included. Otherwise it wouldn't be a summary, would it? It is the norm across animal articles to mention important parent taxa in the intro, "corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". There is already a Simple English Wikipedia, so we don't have to dumb this down to that level. There might be a point in "passerine" being so broad as to be pointless, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". Precisely my point. Do you really think that using the term "feline" in the intro improves the article compared to "cat"? If the reader hasn't heard the term they'll have to click on the link to find out something they already know. This is useless filler. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it would appear the intro of pretty much all animal articles are wrong in your opinion, which makes it a wider discussion that should be taken up at Wikiproject Tree of Life[7] or some such, not the FAC of a single article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from IJReid[edit]

This article is a very good read, and as I completed the GA review for the Australian raven, I believe I have learned a fair amount about the species and genus now. I would support this as a Featured Article, but I have two nitpicks. The caption of the first photograph outside of the lead starts with a lowercase, this should be uppercase. Also, the second paragraph of Taxonomy and naming is difficult to fully understand. It would be best to mention the names of the taxa rendered redundant to C. australis. Also, the reasoning the first revisor was required are not mentioned, and this might cause misinterpretations about the taxonomic history. In reply to Maury Markowitz, it is appropriate for the sentence to include "passerine", as raven is already mentioned, bird is much too general, and Corvidae is noted very soon after in the same sentence. IJReid discuss 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

well-spotted on the caption and fixed now. Will have a tweak on the para a bit later. thanks for the support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I can't see much wrong with this. Just a few minor comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As with the other two species of raven in Australia—although technically correct, given the taxonomic complexities I wonder if " other two species named as ravens..." might be better?
hmmm, to me that implies the names are less valid than other common names. The feather bases are used as a valid sorting tool in Australia, and the evolution supports the name split here between Australian ravens and crows....I think it also makes the flow a a litle awkward. Might pass on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • perished of tuberculosis in 1778—what's wrong with "died" ?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • as evidenced by the forest raven only found in closed forest refuges on the mainland but a wider variety of habitats in Tasmania — I would add a "being" and an "in"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • the forest raven could be confused with the black currawong,— really?
my mother in law pointed at a pied currawong the other day and thought it was a magpie...after that I think anything's possible.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The call is considered the most reliable means of identification in areas where its range— subject of "its" is "call"
expanded instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Forest raven Vocalization"—in the audio caption, capitalisation looks odd
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Forest ravens fly from Tasmania and the mainland to islands well offshore in Bass Strait and may even traverse the strait entirely. It was…—"ravens…it"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing else, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hey Cas, long time no see–Please add alt text for all images. Good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Just a reminder you'll need a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

John[edit]

Tentative support on prose. Like to take one last look but it looks great so far. --John (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two early science fiction magazines together in one article this time; the two have almost identical histories. These two were unusual in that they had no budget for fiction: the editor had to get his stories free from friends and acquaintances. Since his friends included several writers who would go on to become famous in sf, this worked out better than you might expect. The magazine also features some of Hannes Bok's early work, and since it is all out of copyright I've been able to include two of his covers -- he had a very distinctive and characterful style. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree they appear to be fine, but it'd be good to state your source for copyright non-renewal explicitly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked via [8], so it would be easy to add that, but I'm not sure where the standard place to add it would be -- the license template doesn't have parameters. Where does this information usually go for out of copyright images? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I usually link right above the license tag. File:Alex_Schomburg_-_Harl_Vincent_-_Marvel_Science_Stories_for_April-May_1939_-_Illustration_for_Newscast.jpg might be a good template. By the way, Abebooks has a couple copies of these magazines available, so the images might be improveable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Done; I didn't include the license in that parameter because it appears lower down; not sure if that's the standard way to do it or not, but it's what happens when you use the wizard to do uploads. I have copies of all these magazines, and can scan the covers if you're interested, but unfortunately they're in boxes at the moment (along with about 5,000 other old sf magazines). If you really want to restore these old magazines I could keep you busy for a very long time once I get the boxes unpacked! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a major boon. We could start with trying to get major artists and authors, and go from there. Have to be vigorous about copyright checking, but we always need to be vigorous about that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll scan some; I'll check with you before doing it, and it'll be a while, because they're in boxes, but I think this will be great. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Generally very strong.

  • Perhaps you could more clearly clarify the relationship between the two publications in the lead? Also, perhaps the alternative name should be mentioned and bolded?
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph in the publication history section could probably do with some attention
    I tweaked the tense in one place, but I may not be seeing what you're seeing -- can you be specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    The "had he been able to achieve it" thing is throwing me- are you suggesting that he was lying in the advert? I'm also unclear what "In the event" adds. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    The sources don't say he was lying, but personally I think it was likely to be a bait and switch. That issue of Writers' Digest appeared before any issues of either Cosmic or Stirring had appeared, and there's no question Wollheim knew he couldn't pay that rate initially. At best he was hoping that by the time he received manuscripts he might be able to start paying something, if the magazines were successful, but most likely if he liked a story he planned to offer little or nothing for it. The payments Kornbluth received were well below half a cent a word, and I'm not aware that any other writers were paid at all, though they may well have been. It's possible that he believed the Albings would pay that rate after two or three issues, but there's no way to tell.
    What I meant to convey in that paragraph was (a) the fact that he did offer a payment rate, before the magazine launched, and (b) to position that rate against the rates other magazines were paying, so that a reader understands what that rate indicates, and (c) to make it clear that he did not in fact manage to pay the rate. "In the event" is meant to be a transition: I meant no more than "As it turned out". What do you think could be done to improve the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fascinated by this printer error- perhaps it could be expanded upon in a footnote if the information is too trivial for the main body?
    It's an interesting story but I don't think I have the sources to be explicit. Knight's story is about little alien invaders whose bodies were incredibly resilient, so that bullets would cause their bodies to distort but would not harm them. They call humans "the Brittle People". The story is only a page or two long, and the point, if I recall correctly, is the realization at the end that the little aliens are invincible. This depends on the reader understanding who the Little People are (the aliens) and who the Brittle People are (the humans). In the opening sentence, the printer changed "Brittle People" to "Little People", presumably because he assumed it was a mistake on the writer's part. I met Damon Knight years ago and asked him to sign my copy of that issue, and he did, and also corrected the misprint, writing "Brittle People, dammit!" above the first sentence, and signing it. If I can find that issue in my basement I could take a picture of that correction with his signature and include that in the article I suppose, but I'm not sure that's sufficient evidence for a discussion in the text. As it happens, Damon told me he didn't own a copy of that issue any more, so I later found one and sent it to him, which was a nice thing to be able to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    What a fantastic story- both about the misprint and your interactions with Knight. A Google Book search suggests that sources may exist. Any details you can include would be very interesting. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    I had no idea the details were out there; thanks for finding that! I've added a footnote; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In his autobiographical anthology" I note that our article on the book suggests that it is a story anthology rather than autobiographical?
    It's both -- it's a collection of all the stories which to that point had not been collected in his short story collections, interspersed with autobiographical reminiscences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wollheim later commented to Damon Knight that because of the payment he could sue Asimov for royalties whenever his name appeared in print." A nice factoid, but it's not completely clear now- too many pronouns for clarity.
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In contrast to Tremaine's attitude, John W. Campbell, who in 1938 had taken over from Tremaine as editor of the leading science fiction magazine, Astounding Science Fiction, was not concerned by Albing's policy." Again, a little convoluted
    I cut the clause about Campbell taking over from Tremaine; it's true but not strictly necessary to the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although Campbell was proved right when the magazines ceased publication" Sorry to be picky, but Campbell was certainly not proven right by the fact the magazine ceased publication. Perhaps you could say "Although the magazine did cease publication after a relatively short amount of time, ..."
    Thompson's comment in the source is that Campbell's "prognosis" was proved correct, by which he appears to mean Campbell's assertion that the magazines wouldn't be competitive. I think ceasing publication is evidence that they weren't competitive, which I think is what Thompson meant. I've changed this to "Campbell's prediction"; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    How about "although Campbell was correct that the magazine was unable to compete with paying magazines" or something like it? Technically, for Thompson's preduction to be proved correct, it would have to be unsuccessful because of the low quality of the content, which goes against the following setence. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that's definitely better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some inconsistency between the use of "science fiction" and "sf"
    It's deliberate variation -- I use "sf" because "science fiction" is a long enough phrase that is repeated often enough in these articles to get tedious. "Sf" is the standard abbreviation, but I don't think it's necessary to use it all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I made some fixes- please double-check them. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits all look good to me. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I will get back to this in the next few days- sorry for the delay! J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some quick further comments:

  • Quotes, even in the lead, should always be cited.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Was the crucial typo in the first sentence or the last sentence of the story?
    The first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some months later Wollheim was able to find another publisher," Perhaps mention the name of the publisher here?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made some more tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose and content. I've not looked into the sources/images in detail. Great work. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

  • No dab or dup links
  • Prose looks good, I just tweaked here and there
  • Structure is simple and straightforward
  • Content/detail seems sufficient, especially given the short life of these mags
  • I'll rely on the review above for image licensing
  • Sources all look reliable and happy with the formatting

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No prob -- I forgot to add, just picking up on your nom statement, that the covers you've been able to include are indeed very special! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I think Bok's work is really unusual and deserves to be more widely known. The May 1941 Cosmic cover, in particular, is terrific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


One nitpick: *"Knight would later become a member of the Futurians, but he was still living in Oregon at the time the story appeared in print" - We haven't established that location had anything to do with membership. Should this be explicitly mentioned? Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. They were a New York group; I've now mentioned that before the comment about Knight -- does that fix it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper[edit]

Nominator(s): Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the American film actor Gary Cooper, noted for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances. His career spanned thirty-six years, from 1925 to 1961, and included leading roles in eighty-four feature films. He was a major movie star from the end of the silent film era through the end of the golden age of Classical Hollywood. His screen persona appealed powerfully to both men and women, and his range of performances included roles in most major movie genres. Cooper's ability to project his own personality onto the characters he played contributed to his appearing natural and authentic on screen. The screen persona he sustained throughout his career represented the ideal American hero. Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. At an earlier stage in its history the article was long and, in parts, discursive. The nominator has since tightened it up admirably, and it is now comprehensive without being overlong. The prose is a pleasure to read, the sourcing and referencing are wide and thorough, the proportions and balance impeccable. I leave it to the experts to comment on the images, but as regards the text I am happy to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Undue coverage of Patricia Neal and abortion makes me quite concerned. The affair is of minor biographical value, and a couple of sentences would suffice. I say this as a person whose GA Joseph Widney was achieved by massive removal of "stuff". Collect (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I responded to your discussion on the Gary Cooper talk page, but I'll copy that response here for the reviewers. Cooper's love affair with Neal was well-publicized and documented in Neal's autobiography, as well as all of the Cooper biographies. By all accounts this was not a casual fling, but a serious relationship, which led to Cooper's three-year separation from his wife (which you also deleted)—a major event in his personal life. After his death, Cooper's daughter Maria reached out to Neal and helped her through a difficult time. A few sentences about their affair and the direct impact on his marriage is appropriate for this article. If the focus of your objection is the sentence on abortion, delete that one sentence. A fair argument can be made for its removal. Keep in mind that a number of editors have recently reviewed this article—GA and Peer Review—and it was not brought up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here and the article talk page. Bede735 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Made edit on that basis - also removed an "also" etc. OK? Collect (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with your changes. Bede735 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Another happy PR participant. This article is very well written, nicely balanced, covers all the aspects of Cooper's life I would expect it to, and is an enjoyable read throughout. Excellent work! - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I conducted the GA review for this and was happy with many of the improvements during and since with the peer review. There may still be too much personal life info for some people, but it is clearly very well researched and written and some readers will like the length.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I have been making visits to this article since it's GA review and the article has improved to a great extent. My only comment is that it would be better to archive all newspaper and magazines article references to prevent dead links. Otherwise, great job! — Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Gary_Cooper_Signature.png: what is the original source for this?
I created the signature image from an autograph I found here: PSA (fourth image in the scroll). I added a link to the original source to the image page. Bede735 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:For_Whom_The_Bell_Tolls_trailer.jpg: IMDb is not a good source for copyright status - check for renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the link on the image page with one from TCM, also with no copyright notice. Bede735 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Any more concerns from me? Nope; Do I support this article? YUP! Jimknut (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- I can see this article has generated healthy interest (as one would hope). We still need a source review for formatting/reliability, as well as a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing given this is the nominator's first time at FAC. I'll post a request at WT:FAC for the former, perhaps Tim could look after the latter? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy to do a spot-check. I've just ordered the Dickens, Meyer and Swindell books at the British Library: they'll be ready for collection by mid-morning, when I'll toddle down and do the honours. I'll report back after lunch, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Spot-check

I've done a ten per cent check of the cited sources for accuracy and due avoidance of close paraphrase. Owing to a misunderstanding between me and the British Library (i.e. I screwed it up) I was working from a later edition of Meyers than the one used for the article, and the page numbers don't match. But I was able to check the statements attributed to Meyers in my sample, even if I can't vouch for the accuracy of the page numbers cited.

  • Meyers
    • Refs 42, 43, 59, 94, 124, 142, 153, 169, 197, 216, 231, 267, 289, 314, 330 and 396 are all fine for accuracy and absence of close paraphrasing.
  • Dickens
    • Refs 34, 41, 51, 97, 105, 118 (but see my next sentence), 160, 173, 183, 196, 213, 238, 243, 252, 258, 270, 296 and 404 are all fine. Ref 118 should ideally point to page 140 rather than 139, I think.
You're right, Tim. I made the correction. Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Swindell
    • Refs 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 36, 53, 72 (another page number query – see below), 93, 123, 164, 205 a & b, 293 a & b, 319, 343, 377, 389, and 420 (so far as I could tell without knowing what the nominator considers a cameo, and I'm quite happy to leave it at that) are all fine. Ref 72 should point to p. 122 rather than 123.
I made the correction. Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, the article passes the spot-check admirably. – Tim riley talk 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tim riley for taking the time to do this and for all your help at GA and PR. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Love It to Death[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Alice Cooper band's breakthrough album, which took them from mere chicken-slaughtering infamy to pop superstardom—within two years they'd be rivaling Led Zeppelin in ticket sales, and would leave a lasting influence on punk, hard rock, and metal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Media review

  • "I'm Eighteen" snippet caption needs editing for grammar
  • File:Dwight_Frye.png needs author's date of death and a US PD tag
  • File:Alice_Cooper_I'm_Eighteen.ogg: what is the length of the original recording?
  • File:Alice_Cooper_-_Ballad_of_Dwight_Frye_snippet.ogg also needs length of original recording as well as a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I didn't notice this source review on my watchlist. Sorry to have left it so long! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments -- as a minor Alice fan (if that's possible!) I might recuse coord duties to review, hopefully over the coming week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here we go...

  • Copyedited a bit so I don't have any special issue with the prose as it now stands -- tks Curly for responding to and actioning a couple of queries I raised in my edit summaries.
    • The only thing I've gone and undone is the past tense in the album cover bit—we're supposed to describe these things in the present tense, as these details remain true today. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't really notice the lack of anything much in terms of comprehensiveness -- background, recording, style, reception and legacy all seemed to be treated in reasonable depth without going into the trivial.
  • Media-wise I'll happily go with Nikki's review above.
  • Source-wise I'd welcome a review for formatting/reliability from Nikki but I'll probably spotcheck some sources myself, particularly in the Content section, for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This isn't because I think Curly's a risky proposition but I find it's a bit of a challenge to paraphrase discussions of popular music while remaining close to the meaning intended, so worth a look in any such article.
  • That brings me to a couple of structural suggestions: I wonder if Content might not be better as Style or simply Music and lyrics, unless those are frowned upon by WP:Albums these days. I also feel the present Content style should be sandwiched between Recording and production and Release and reception, since going from the latter to Content seemed to be rewinding things.
    • You're right—I think I may have had the bit on the cover artwork in there at some time, but now there's only the music and lyrics, so I've retitled the section "Music and lyrics". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's about it for now, I enjoyed the read and am leaning to support but will await your responses re. structure and also look at a few sources before committing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

M-theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Polytope24 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

M-theory is the remarkable physical theory in eleven dimensions whose existence was conjectured by Edward Witten in 1995. Witten's discovery ignited the second superstring revolution and led to a number of important developments in theoretical physics and pure mathematics. This year is the 20th anniversary of Witten's announcement, so I thought it would be cool to bring this article to featured status. Polytope24 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Roughly speaking, bosons are the constituents of radiation, while fermions are the constituents of matter.

I associate bosons more with mediating forces than radiation.

  • Such objects had been considered as early as 1962 by Paul Dirac, and they were reconsidered by a small but enthusiastic group of physicists in the 1980s.

A reference to a Dirac publication would be nice.

  • Branes are dynamical objects which can propagate through spacetime according to the rules of quantum mechanics. They have mass and can have other attributes such as charge.

Do all branes have mass?

  • There is a small amount of inline LaTeX. As always, it looks awful AWFUL when using PNG rendering on a large screen.

Suggestion: Use the math templates like in xyyx and 1/g or 1g.

YohanN7 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, YohanN7. I just finished making changes to the article. Please let me know if I have adequately addressed your concerns. Polytope24 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, every single one. I'll actually read that Dirac paper. His papers are usually very clearly presented. YohanN7 (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support All my issues have been dealt with, I hope my comments are ultimately useful to the audience. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help! Polytope24 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: To start with, I'm actually surprised how well this article is put together. I especially like the lede's summation of the theory's (theories) applicability to math vs. physics, which is often overlooked in more glowing articles (well, in the past at least, perhaps the bloom is off the rose). Most of the wiki's math articles are absolutely atrocious collections of jargon, but this one is presented in easily readable prose with actual explanations. Most of what follows is minor, but there is one big issue I'd like to see addressed, lacking which I think the article is incomplete and inherently misleading. So, onward...

*Notes

This section mixes notes and citations. I'd strongly recommend removing the notes, like item 1, should be in their own section. If you're OK with that, I can quickly implement that with efn if you'd like.

*"In everyday life, there are three familiar dimensions of space (up/down, left/right, and forward/backward), and there is one dimension of time (later/earlier). Thus, in the language of modern physics, one says that spacetime is four-dimensional."

I don't think it's reasonable to state that 4d spacetime is a part of "everyday life". More broadly, I think it's worth another couple of sentences in this para to explain where 4d "is". Conceptually, GR is quite simple (IMHO) and I think we should make an attempt to explain that here, otherwise what follows is sort of floating about on it's own. Perhaps something along the lines of...
In everyday life we are familiar with the three dimensions of space, up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. In physics, however, general relativity introduces the concept that time itself is a similar dimension, giving rise to the modern concept of spacetime, a four-dimensional universe. We do not directly observe the 4th dimension in the same way we do the other three, we do not see it as a physical construct. Many everyday effects, like gravity, are a side-effect of this unseen "direction"; under general relativity, you are held to the surface of the Earth not because something is pulling you down, but because that is the shortest distance between today and tomorrow in a direction you cannot see.
I apologize for the prose of that last sentence, but you get where I'm going here. Some explanation of the geometric basis for gravity seems appropriate at this spot.
I have slightly expanded the edit you made here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

*"Despite the obvious relevance of four-dimensional spacetime for describing the physical world"

Again, I don't consider this "obvious". Perhaps something discussing the success of these theories, as opposed to their obviousness, would be more appropriate here.

*"History and development"

Here's where I see an actual problem. Higher-dimensional solutions to physics have been around since GR. It was not long after that we had Kaluza–Klein theory and Einstein's own efforts. I consider these to be the forerunners of M-theory in every fashion. That they failed in their quest is not surprising given the difficulty of applying GR generally, and it is equally unsurprising that supergravity became "a thing" shortly after the golden age of GR began. I really think that this article should mention the development of the precursors, and the "battle" between these and QM's development through the same era. In that historical context, attempts to "dimensionize" physics were failures, QM was offering more progress and those other efforts dropped by the wayside. They briefly re-emerged in the 70s, and I think the article does a fine job from that point on.
I think this is a serious problem. In this historiography, M theory is the latest salvo in a 100-year battle between the two great physics. It's the way it potentially sits above either that makes it such a hot topic. Currently the article doesn't talk this at all, and I think that is a serious oversight.

That's all I have for now, I'm about 2/3rds through it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maury, thanks for these comments. I actually think all of these points are fairly easy to address, including the issue with the history section. I'll start working on it as soon as possible. In the mean time, if you want to make changes to the notes/citations, you're certainly welcome to do that. Polytope24 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Polytope24, check out my User:Maury Markowitz/sandbox and see if you think that would be a useful first section in the history area. I wrote it to lead directly into the existing section. If you like it, I can ref it up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these suggestions. I just added a short subsection explaining the prehistory of higher dimensional models of spacetime and Kaluza-Klein theory. This is all based on the material you posted in your sandbox, but I changed a bunch of things in order to ensure that writing was accurately reflected in the citations.
I also decided to leave out the parts explaining Newton's laws and the history of general relativity. The purpose of of this section is to give a concise history of M-theory, not to explain the whole history of physics starting with the work of Newton. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to your concern that the article did not sufficiently emphasize the prehistory of the subject and the role of Kaluza-Klein theory. Hopefully the changes I've made will address your concerns. If not, please let me know, and we can talk about it.
You'll also notice that I added a few sentences elaborating on the notion of four-dimensional spacetime. This should help emphasize the point you've been making, namely that the idea of extra dimensions was implicit in a lot of the thinking leading up to the discovery of M-theory.
Please let me know if there's anything else I need to change. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent work! My only remaining suggestion in the history section is to mention the 1960s rebirth of GR as a leadup to supergravity. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I added a sentence on this. Please let me know if that's what you wanted. Polytope24 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the sentence into the appropriate section, expanded it slightly and cited it. I extracted notes into a separate section, and re-sectionized the references. See what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a few changes to maintain a consistent citation style. Polytope24 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the issues above have been dealt with. I just finished the section on AdS/CFT correspondence and think I actually understand it now. This is precisely the sort of clear explanation that many of the math and science articles lack, and I'm calling it out for attention on how to do this right. Ok, just a few more...

*"One property of this boundary is that, locally around any point,"

So does this mean "at any arbitrary point on the boundary"? I'm a bit confused about this passage. Do we live in the middle of the disk, or on it's edge?

*"(2,0)-theory"

I can't find an explanation of what "(2,0)" means, either here or the linked article. The 6D is explained, as is AsD7, but not this term. Maybe a return directly after this to separate the para and then a single sentence on this?

*A couple of cites need buffing, Randall, Wald and Zee have harv tags with nothing pointing to them. Would you like me to fix these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I made some very subtle changes in the section on AdS/CFT to emphasize that "locally around a point" refers to a region restricted to the boundary surface, and not intersecting the interior at all. The point of the AdS/CFT correspondence is that you have two separate theories. For one of them, "spacetime" is the bulk anti-de Sitter space, and for the other, it's the two-dimensional surface at the boundary. Please let me know if the revised version is more understandable.
I also added a sentence explaining the meaning of (2,0). This is a pretty technical bit of jargon that's not really relevant for understanding what this theory is all about, so I mentioned only very briefly.
Finally, I went ahead and removed those harv tags. They were originally being used to create citations within the explanatory footnotes. However, I was bothered by the fact that these citations showed up as hyperlinks and none of the others did. I also didn't like the idea of having footnotes within footnotes. Feel free to make further changes to the references if you like. Polytope24 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm coming in late to this, but I would like to remind editors that WikiProject Mathematics strongly discourages use of {{frac}} in mathematical formulas. I see that hasn't been done. I would not be at all surprised if {{math|{{frac|1|''g''}}}} would fail at some point. I did make one change, which I hope meets with approval. I changed {{math}}10<sup>-30</sup>}} to {{nowrap|10<sup>−30</sup>}}, changing "math" no "nowrap" and changing the hyphen to a mathematical minus. I don't think wrapping numbers, by themselves, in {{math}}, serves any purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur Rubin. I don't know much about typesetting math on Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help with this. Do you have any recommendations for typesetting fractions? Polytope24 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{{math|{{sfrac|1|''g''}}}} 1/g is considered acceptable, but formulas involving complex fractions have many of the same problems using <math>...</math> and {{math}}. {{frac|1|2|3}} (1 23) uses superscript and subscript and thinspaces to simulate pre-computer typesetter's fraction notation; there is a version of that in LaTeX, but it's (wisely) not available within our math tags. I used to have a template {{tfrac}} which used the same parameters as {{frac}} and {{sfrac}}, but just used the inline version (with, I think, some thin spaces). It was deleted as unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I just learned about {{frac}} and have been going through my articles looking for places to use it. {{frac}} is my new god. And they don't like it? <moviesound>Noooooooo!</moviesound> Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

My knowledge of the topic is that of an interested layman with a maths background, so some of these questions may reveal my ignorance more than they point up issues in the article.

  • "One of the vibrational states of a string gives rise to the graviton": I don't think you say clearly that there is only one type of string, which may have different vibrational states, and that these states correspond to the various fundamental particles -- that is, that there are no particles left over by this approach. For a reader unfamiliar with the topic I think this would be worth stating directly. Perhaps even enumerate a couple more well-known particles beyond the graviton to make it clearer this approach models all particles.
  • "the type I theory includes ..., while the type II theories include ...": why singular "theory" for "type I" but plural for type II?
    D'oh. I see you fixed this, but I just realized the answer, and it really didn't need to be changed. Oh, well, it works the way you have it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that this needs to be in the article, but I found myself wondering to what extent the dualities are transitive. The description you give: "If two theories are related by a duality, it means that one theory can be transformed in some way so that it ends up looking just like the other theory" is pretty strong; wouldn't that imply that all five of these theories can be transformed into any of the others?
    I'll reply to this below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused by the appearance of M-theory in the duality diagram. It's been described up to this point as a superset of all the string theories; the five named theories are limit points of it. So in what sense can it be specified to the point where it is dual to some of the five theories but not others?
    I'll reply to this below too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You give two (apparently) different informal characterizations of "supergravity theory". In the supersymmetry section you say a theory in which supersymmetry is imposed as a local symmetry is a supergravity theory; later you say "fresh work on higher-dimensional concepts combining general relativity with recent developments in particle physics, under the general name supergravity". Are these slightly different informal terms for the same underlying theories, or was the term used slightly differently in the 1960s?
  • In a couple of places you have "work of" rather than "the work of"; if you don't want to use "the" I think "work by" would read more naturally.
  • "One of the problems was that the laws of physics appear to distinguish between clockwise and counterclockwise, a phenomenon known as chirality. As emphasized by Edward Witten and others, this chirality property cannot be readily derived by compactifying from eleven dimensions." The start of the second sentence seems a bit clumsy to me. How about "...a phenomenon known as chirality: Edward Witten and others have emphasized that this chirality property cannot be readily derived by compactifying from eleven dimensions"?
  • "Indeed, by the 1990s, physicists had identified five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory": does this mean they'd identified five, and there are possibly more still to be identified? I'm not clear what "indeed" is adding here.
    The change you made is an improvement, but I'm still not quite clear if the implication is that there were exactly five to be found, and they were found; or if five had been found by the 1990s, with possibly more remaining to be discovered. The use of "determined" makes the former seem likely but I wanted to check. In the context of the rest of the article it seems as though there should in fact be many more theories, inside the grey "M-theory" shape in the schematic diagram, but perhaps only five of them qualify as purely supersymmetric theories, with only ten dimensions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The general belief is that there are exactly five supersymmetric string theories in ten dimensions, but I'm not comfortable writing this in the article. An expert on perturbative string theory could probably give you arguments why this is the case, but the statement that there are only five string theories is not a theorem. It's certainly possible that theorists will eventually discover a new string theory; see here, for example. Let me know if you think there's a better way to express this state of affairs in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think if we just weaken "determined" to something like "identified" it will fix the issue -- "identified" would be neutral about whether there are five or more than five theories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Damn. I just noticed that that's the exact word you originally had, and when I first read it I took it as not neutral. Sorry for being so unhelpful on this one; let me think about it and see if I can come up with a phrase that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Currently the article has "In string theory, the possibilities are much more constrained, and there are only a few consistent formulations of the theory. By the 1990s, physicists had determined that there were five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory." Could we say something like "In string theory, the possibilities are much more constrained: by the 1990s, physicists had identified five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory, and it is possible that there are no more to be found"? That would let the reader know that it isn't definitely the case that there are only five. The phrase I cut seems redundant with the second half of the sentence, which makes it clear by example that there are only a few consistent formulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to explicitly mention the possibility of a new string theory. That would give undue weight to a very speculative possibility. Take a look at my edit to the article and let me know what you think. Polytope24 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ashoke Sen studied the heterotic theory compactified down to four dimensions": should this be "theories" rather than "theory", since there are two heterotic theories?
    Your change addresses my concern, but now I wonder why this is here. Presumably his work was significant, but you don't actually say so -- I imagine he's not the only theorist who has studied heterotic strings in four dimensions. Can we say why his work is worth mentioning? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This should be fixed now. Polytope24 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The section "Relationships between string theories" is written as if no mention of the two dualities had been made earlier in the article. I think the level of detail is about right, but I think it would read more naturally to acknowledge the fact that these have already been mentioned and diagrammed and the reader can be presumed to recall some of that information. Alternatively, you might be able to move the information on dualities (and probably also on branes) down to the subsection of the history and development section where those concepts come up. I think either approach can work.
  • "These calculations led them to conjecture that the BFSS matrix model is exactly equivalent to M-theory. It can therefore be used to describe M-theory and investigate its properties in a relatively simple setting": assuming that their conjecture is not yet proven, would it be more accurate to say "It might therefore be used"? As it stands the sentence makes it seem that the usefulness is not contingent on the truth of the conjecture.
    Sorry, the change you made doesn't really address what I was trying to say. The last sentence starts "It can therefore be used", which is unconditional. Is the BFSS matrix model now known to be exactly equivalent to M-theory, as proposed? Or is the equivalence still conjectural? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with saying that matrix theory is equivalent to M-theory is that the latter isn't really well defined. The very existence of M-theory is a conjecture, whereas matrix theory is a well defined construction that theorists can study mathematically. Therefore it doesn't really make precise sense to "conjecture" an equivalence.
Instead, what's going on here is the following. The BFSS paper showed that matrix theory has certain properties that are expected to hold in any correct formulation of M-theory. It therefore proposed matrix theory as a possible definition of M-theory, and this proposal now has wide support. It is in this sense that matrix theory may be used to investigate the properties of M-theory.
I realize that this is potentially a very confusing issue, so I went ahead and changed the language in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Struck; that's much clearer and answers the question I had. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1999, Nathan Seiberg and Edward Witten described further relations between string theory and noncommutative geometry": this is quite a bland statement. No doubt the technical details wouldn't be helpful but is the point here that their work tightened or strengthened the links mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, perhaps we could say that.
  • Is there a possible link target for AdS7×S4?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. You've asked a couple of really excellent questions that I'm not sure how to address within the article. I'll try to explain the answers here, and perhaps you can recommend changes to the article that would clarify things.
I found myself wondering to what extent the dualities are transitive… wouldn't that imply that all five of these theories can be transformed into any of the others?
That is correct. A duality, by definition, is an exact (and very nontrivial) equivalence of two physical theories. The conjecture is that all of the five superstring theories are equivalent by these dualities and in addition that they are all equivalent to M-theory in eleven dimensions. In certain contexts, it may be useful to work in one theory or another, but in principle it should be possible to map any calculation in one theory to an equivalent calculation in any of the other theories.
It's been described up to this point as a superset of all the string theories; the five named theories are limit points of it. So in what sense can it be specified to the point where it is dual to some of the five theories but not others?
M-theory is meant to describe some physical phenomena in eleven dimensions. If you take one of the dimensions to be shaped like a circle, the physics is still that of M-theory: two- and five-dimensional branes. If you take the circle to be very small, then there's an alternative description of the physics in terms of type IIA strings in ten-dimensions, but fundamentally we're talking about the same physics as before, so these theories must be equivalent. Since we're talking about a very special physical regime in which spacetime has a very special geometry, we label this theory at one of the cusps in the M-theory diagram. Polytope24 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It sounds as though the grey area in the M-theory schematic diagram in the article could be regarded as a parameter space, and the five superstring theories represent different points in that parameter space. Is that more or less right? Then the dualities are equivalence relations within the parameter space. So are there multiple equivalence classes within M-theory? Or are all possible "parameterizations" (if that's the word I'm looking for) of M-theory essentially equivalent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The gray region in the diagram is similar to a parameter space. The different points represent different physical situations that are possible in M-theory. In certain parts of the diagram, it is natural to describe the physics in terms of one of the five string theories, but the relationship between M-theory and these five string theories is valid more generally. In principle, you could consider a physical scenario corresponding to any point in the diagram and describe it in any of the string theories. Polytope24 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's helpful; thanks. I don't think that that's stated as clearly in the article as you just put it; perhaps something to that effect could be added? I think that might be enough to resolve my concern, but I'm finding it difficult to articulate exactly what my concern is. I'd like to sleep on it and take another look at the article tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not clear how the dualities diagram can work with the description of M-theory you give. Perhaps the right question is: if any point in the diagram can be described, in principle, in any of the five theories, why does the diagram show only two of the five with a duality connecting them to M-theory? To put it another way: the duality between Type I and SO (32) heterotic connects two different points on the gray shape; the duality "converts" one point into the other. For the duality between Type IIA and M-theory, what is the other point -- the non-Type IIA point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're asking two questions here, so let me answer them separately.
why does the diagram show only two of the five with a duality connecting them to M-theory?
As you pointed out in an earlier comment, these dualities are transitive, so we can compose them to get a duality of any of the five string theories with M-theory. The diagram of string dualities has the lines color coded to indicate which ones are S-duality and which ones are T-duality. However, if we compose an S-duality with a T-duality, the result will not be of either type; it'll be a combination of the two. That's why there are only two lines in the diagram connecting M-theory to the string theories.
For the duality between Type IIA and M-theory, what is the other point -- the non-Type IIA point?
Let's say we're at some point in the diagram near the cusp labelled IIA. Then we're describing a physical system consisting of strings interacting in ten dimensions. If we deform the situation by slowly moving this point away from the cusp, then the strings will start to interact more strongly. If we keep moving the point, we'll eventually end up somewhere in the bulk of the diagram. The strings are now interacting very strongly, and type IIA string theory ceases to provide a useful description of the physics because we don't know how to do calculations in this regime. It is therefore more natural to switch to a different description where we're talking about M-theory in an eleven-dimensional world in which one of the dimensions looks like a circle of finite size.
Conversely, suppose we start at a point in the center of the diagram corresponding to an eleven dimensional world with one dimension shaped like a circle. If we slowly move this point in the diagram, bringing it closer and closer to the cusp labeled IIA, then the circular dimension begins to shrink. It gets smaller and smaller as we approach the cusp, and eventually, when it's sufficiently small, the corresponding description in type IIA string theory becomes mathematically tractable. It's then convenient to view the system as a collection of weakly interacting strings in ten-dimensions.
One can play a similar game with the theories labeled at the boundary of the diagram. For example, we can choose a point near the type I cusp. The corresponding physical system has a nice description as a system of open and closed strings in ten dimensions. We can deform the situation by dragging this point along a path connecting the type I and SO(32) heterotic cusps. As we move along this path, the strings interact more strongly. Eventually, the description becomes intractable, so we apply S-duality to view the system as a collection of weakly interacting heterotic strings.
Note that at any point in the diagram, we can apply dualities to describe the physics using the M-theory description or any of the five string theory descriptions. These are all equivalent, but in a particular part of the diagram, it may be convenient to use one description rather than another. Polytope24 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That answers my question; I think I now understand this as well as I'm going to, and I can see why the diagrams are the way they are. Could we add a couple of sentences, near to one or the other of the two diagrams, that explain this? Your last paragraph above is very concise and seems to me to summarize the situation very well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand what was confusing in the article. I've expanded both of the captions to make things more understandable. Polytope24 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks for sticking with me through these questions; I think that really helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I just made a bunch of changes to the article to address your other points. Let me know what you think. Polytope24 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've struck most and responded to a couple above; feel free to reply indented at the appropriate points in my bullet list -- sometimes that's easier to follow. I'll try to come up with sensible answers to your first two replies in a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. This seems to me to strike the right balance between technical and simplistic. The prose is clear and the article is well-organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Mike Christie! You've given some very thoughtful comments, and I think it's helped clarify some very subtle points in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mark viking[edit]

These comments are for the scientific content of the article. I don't feel particularly qualified to judge the more generic FA criteria, but I will say that I don't see any glaring deficits relative to FA criteria. I'm a physicist who is familiar with the basics of string theory, but who has not worked in the field.

Overall, this article looks great. I had a hard time providing constructive criticism, because it all seems well-written and explains most concepts about as simply as possible.

Here is one seeming omission:

  1. There is no mention of , e.g., brane cosmology in the article. Are there no cosmological predictions from M-theory? This article by Tom Banks suggests there might be some general predictions.

Here are some minor points:

  1. In this article supergravity is called a gravitational theory in the lead. In the supergravity article, it is called a field theory. I tend to think of it more as a field theory, but reasonable people can disagree.
  2. In the quantum gravity and strings introductory section, the last sentence on the second para says "One of the vibrational states of a string gives rise to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that mediates gravitational interactions." Mediates gravitational interactions is a grad-level physics expression; maybe something like provides the gravitational force.
  3. First para of the dualities section: what "strongly vs weakly interacting" means is not provided. In physics it has to do with the applicability of perturbation theory, or perhaps the energy of the interacting field relative to the particles. One might just gloss over those technical points and say it refers to the relative strength of the forces between particles.
  4. Calling ABJM superconformal field theory a main article (in the ABJM superconformal field theory section) is a stretch, as the paragraph in this article provides more detail than said article. Probably better just to link to it, rather than call it a main article.
  5. Noncommutative quantum field theory is linked to as a main article in the Noncommutative geometry section, but field theory isn't really mentioned in the prose of that section.

--Mark viking (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Great comments as usual, Mark viking! I made changes to the article to address each of your points. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be changed. Polytope24 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Support All my comments have been addressed. The additional short paragraph on brane cosmology looks good and IMO is of due weight relative to the whole topic. Hence, I support this article for feature article status. Excellent work, Polytope24! --Mark viking (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Maky[edit]

  • I'm really concerned about the image used in {{String theory}}, File:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png. First of all, because the image itself is linked, it's very difficult for the average reader to find out copyright details for the image. I had to edit the template code to even find the name of the image. To me, that's a problem. Secondly—and most importantly—I don't think the source (and details about it from the description) are correct. It claims to be from the cover of the November 2007 issue of Scientific American. Not only does the image not appear on the cover of that issue (or any other back to at least 1997), but there are no articles in that issue pertaining to string theory. Furthermore, Scientific American copyrights all of its graphics, per its terms of use. In short, this image may need to go. And even if it can stay, it would be best to convert it into an SVG file.
  • Please fix up the description and source of File:Compactification on a circle.png. The description should describe the contents of the image, and the source should point back to the SVG from which it is derived. On Commons, a good template for this is "Derived from". Also, a source for the original visualization is needed.
  • File:Dualities of string and M-theory.jpg (and most other images in this article) should be recreated in SVG format. (Inkscape is a good open source software package for doing this.) Also, a source for the content should be provided.
  • File:MichaelDuff.JPG is flagged to be moved to Commons. Issues like these need to be resolved before bringing the article to FAC. Also, the image should probably be cropped.
  • File:Limits of M-theory.png, File:AdS3 (new).png, etc... Again, source for this visualization? And wouldn't SVG be a better format?
  • File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png has not been reviewed since being moved to Commons, and probably should be converted to SVG. And once again, what's the source for this visualization?
  • File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg could use a description similar to its source and better referencing.
  • File:Calabi yau.jpg is flagged as needing to be converted to SVG.

Oppose – It's clear that the images and their licensing have not been given anything more than a cursory glance, even at GAN. Many issues need to be resolved here. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the image audit. Regarding your first point, I agree that there are problems here. There is a picture of a Calabi-Yau manifold on the cover of the November 2003 SciAm, but it is not the same as this one. The image is an alternate of File:Calabi yau.jpg and in the description of that image, it says the image was generated by Lunch, based on algorithms created by A. J. Hanson. Looking at Hanson's website, there is an image that looks a lot like this image here and similar software was used to generate the SciAm image, probably the source of the confusion. The algorithms were based on this paper. We could fix the description of File:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png to reflect that of File:Calabi yau.jpg--is that the sort of thing you are looking for? Regarding PNG to SVG, Lunch has not edited since 2011, so source code is unavailable. Conversion using autotracers such as potrace, etc., are unlikely to produce better looking results. What do you suggest? --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maky, I appreciate your comments here, but there are some things I don't understand.
1. I fixed the description of File:Compactification on a circle.png. You say that a source for the original image is needed, but I see that the source is already given as "own work". Is this a problem?
2. Would it be okay if I simply uploaded a new cropped version of File:MichaelDuff.JPG to commons even though the current version is flagged?
3. For File:Limits of M-theory.png and File:AdS3 (new).png, the source field says "own work". What should I change this to?
4. How can I get File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png reviewed? And again, why is "own work" not an acceptable source?
5. I modified the description of File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg by copying a bunch of links from the description of the source image. Is this what you wanted?
6. In general, why is there such a strong preference for SVG format?
Thanks for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mark viking: Yes, the description fixes you hinted at should suffice. I suggest making sure all related images are cleaned up so there is no confusion in the future. Regarding an SVG conversion, it is not required for an image this complex, but you could request help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab.
@Polytope24: For files like File:Limits of M-theory.png and File:AdS3 (new).png, where did this sort of visualization come from? For the types of articles I write, I create range maps for species by highlighting where they are found on a map. I can't just create a map and say "Own work" and leave it at that. People want to know where I got my data, or in other types of illustrations, where I got the inspiration and data for the illustration. And the reference doesn't have to be in the "Source" per se—as long as the description notes what it's based on. (Here are two examples: [9] & [10]) For files like File:Compactification on a circle.png, it's a little trickier. If this illustration was inspired by similar illustrations in the literature, it's worth citing those. But if no one else has made similar illustrations, then "Own work" would probably suffice. I'm open to second opinions on this. As for File:MichaelDuff.JPG, I'd just move it to Commons and then crop it there (replacing the original, but keeping it in the history). For File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png, click the links in the box about reviewing and do it yourself. "Own work" might be fine in this case, but consider what I said above. File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg looks good now. As for SVG, for geometric shapes, it is much more scalable because it is a vector graphic format. As I've learned, the way MediaWiki downsamples PNG, it makes JPEG better for articles, and JPEG (as a raster graphic format) losses quality with scaling. Again, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab can help if you don't know how to create SVG files. – Maky « talk » 08:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I wanted to let everyone know that my computer/internet access is somewhat limited over the next few days. I'll definitely be able to fix some of these issues this weekend, but in the mean time, please feel free to edit the images in the article.
As for the Calabi-Yau image in the string theory template, why don't we just replace it with this one? Polytope24 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"When asked which state he hails from, our sole reply shall be, he hails from Appomattox and its famous apple tree." Fellow Wikipedians, I give you Ulysses S. Grant. Soldier, politician, businessman, and author, he bestrode mid-19th century America like a Colossus. Easily the most popular man of his age in the United States, he comes before you in this article which, since it last appeared on these pages, has undergone extensive copyediting and significant content changes, not to mention a thorough A-class review at WikiProject Military history. My co-editors and I think it meets the FA criteria. As the bit of doggerel that I've copied above suggests, we hope to get this on the Main Page by April 9, 2015, the 150th anniversary of Grant's victory at Appomattox Court House. Thank you for your attention. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I am a Wikicup participant, and I believe I would be eligible for points on this, but I have to check with the coordinators -- much of the work was done last year. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Support I was an A-class participant. Much improved and very worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you, and thanks again for your comments at the A-class review. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Emboldened by Lincoln's call for a general advance": This was "... a general advance of all Union forces" at the end of the A-class review, and many readers won't think these two sentences mean the same thing. There have been a lot of tweaks since A-class, and they're mostly fine from a copyeditor's point of view, but some of them change the meaning, and I have no knowledge of whether they were made by people consulting the sources who decided to change the meaning. But I trust Coemgenus's and Wehwalt's judgment on this.
  • "an immediate taking": ugh.
  • 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) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support and the copyediting. I've reworded the parts you pointed out above. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

My interest in the Gilded Age has been stimulated by some fine articles from the Wehwalt stable, and I realise that Grant is a central figure of the period. But I feel somewhat frustrated with this, an evidently well-prepared and accurate account of Grant's life, the issue that niggles being that of length. The article is over 14,300 words long, not the longest-ever potential FA, but within the top half-dozen, I suspect. However, this is the "main article" in a series covering all aspects of Grant's life; the series collectively amounts to well over 55,000 words – including a whopping 18,000+ in the article on Grant's presidency. With such an abundance of detail available in the subarticles, does this main article have to be quite so long? The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression, and it doesn't seem that these have been fully exercised here. My chief frustration is that, because of the pressures of my other WP commitments, I simply won't have time to read and properly review an article that is of great interest to me. This is no reflection on the efforts of Coemgenus and the other principal contributors, but it does raise – again – the question of what is, or should be, the accepted maximum length of a WP article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. The article is long, longer than any I've ever worked on. Since before it was made GA, Alanscottwalker and I have worked to tighten and summarise the prose, with some success. Compare, for example, this pre-GA version. I've cut things and had editors object, so we add them back in in the name of consensus. The sub-articles have helped, but have not solved the problem.
I recognise that saying "it could be worse" is not a great defense, but it is illustrative of how much information there is out there about Grant, and how much of it various editors wish to include in the article. The size of major articles have crept up over the years across the encyclopedia. I think a lot of this is because things that used to be just stated and linked are now both linked and explained briefly in the article. It makes for a more fluid read, but it does add to the length of the thing.
If you can think of some areas that could use trimming, I will gladly cut them down, but I think we're approaching the point where leaving more out means telling an incomplete story of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A FA quality biography of the leading general of the US Civil War and a two-term president is inevitably going to be fairly lengthy. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That's how I look at it. We could use better data on this on how people use our articles, as it is, we are just guessing on length.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: – for what its worth I don't think there are any particular issues with length, by my count there are more than 115 currently featured articles that are longer than this one, so no where near "within the top half-dozen". Indeed the top ten largest FAs range from 190 kb to a rather large 248 kb. At approx 138 kb this isn't even close. You can run the script here for these stats [11]. Anotherclown (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of kb is a useless measure of length so far as the reader – or indeed the reviewer – is concerned. It is the number of words in the text, in this case 14,300+, that creates the burden. I'm not sure how many FAs have more than 14000 words, but I suspect the answer is not too many. It is a matter of concern whether these uber-articles get the depth of review treatment that they warrant – are potential reviewers put off by the length and time required, as I was? Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Gday thanks for clarifying that. By my reading WP:SIZE seems to mainly talk in terms of kbs and I'll admit I don't have any stats readily at hand on regarding FAs and prose size, although you are probably right in saying that this would be at the higher end. I agree longish articles can struggle to attract reviewers due to the work required, although I don't see that that is a warstopper (for instance by my count this article was reviewed by no less than 7 editors during its A class review - where it is unfortunately now fairly rare to get more than the minimum three). Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that Coemgenus has been trimming and has the count below 14,000 now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

I don't think that I'm qualified to comment on Grant's political career, so I'll limit my coverage to his military career.

  • "not in charge of any company" - would a brevet second lieutenant typically command a company? - the article later says that he commanded a sub-unit of this size only after he'd been promoted to be a captain.
    • You're right, and I deleted this clause.
  • "Grant participated in leading a cavalry charge " - could this be "Grant led a cavalry charge"?
    • Sure could. Fixed.
  • "Grant's mandatory service expired during the war, but he chose to remain a soldier" - do we know why he went from wanting to get out of the Army as soon as he could to deciding to stay on?
    • His memoirs don't say, and I don't recall his biographers giving a reason, either, though I'll recheck this evening.
  • "He grew unhappy separated from his family" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • Should be better now.
  • The material on 1862 doesn't really explain Grant's role and campaign strategy - he and his army simply move from battle to battle, meeting other friendly and enemy armies. It would be good to explain how Grant fitted into the Union war effort in the west at this time.
    • I'm not sure how much of Halleck's strategy we can add within the space constraints. I noted that Forts Henry and Donelson were important to control of the rubbers, so the reader should understand why the army went that way, I think.
  • "Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Grant had not reacted strongly to Southern secession.[46] The news of the attack came as a shock in Galena," - this para seems a bit out of place given that it breaks up the chronological order of the article. I'd suggest reallocating this material.
    • Yes, it should be more chronological now.
  • "the attack be conducted with oversight by navy Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote" - what's meant by 'oversight' here? Was Grant under Foote's command?
    • The chain of command isn't clear in the sources, but this, at p.97 in McFeely, explains better. Halleck didn't approve it when Grant suggested it, but relented when Grant and Foote jointly suggested it.
  • "Lincoln promoted Grant to major-general of volunteers while the Northern press treated Grant as a hero repeating his words "No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender." - this is a bit confusing as the (fairly dramatic) circumstances in this Grant said this aren't explained
    • I reworded this to make it clearer.
  • "now numbered 48,894 troops" - this seems overly specific: I imagine that it's a point in time figure, but the strength of the army would have varied a bit.
    • You're right, it's far too specific. Changed to "nearly 50,000".
  • The start of the first para in the "Shiloh" section should explain what Grant was trying to do, and his relationship with Sherman
    • There used to be more about the Grant-Sherman relationship, but it was cut for brevity. There's still the part about Sherman convincing Grant to stay in the army. I think that's enough. Probably more could be explained in the sub-article.
  • "Grant's troops challenged the Confederate onslaught" - "challenged" is a bit vague, and misses the drama of the battle: the Union Army was largely taken by surprise, but survived as some of its units conducted a determined defensive action
    • I reworded it to better reflect that the Union troops were surprised and driven back.
  • "At dawn, Grant counterattacked, adding 20,000 fresh troops from Major General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's divisions" - "adding" isn't quite right: those units (or at least some of them) had arrived as reinforcements during the battle
    • Tweaked the language here.
  • "The battle was the costliest in American history to that point, with total casualties of 23,746, but Lincoln overruled Grant's critics, saying "I can't spare this man; he fights." - the second half of this sentence doesn't sit comfortably with the first (and it seems to relate to the sentence before it)
    • I rearranged it, but I'm still not satisfied completely with how it reads. Any suggestions are welcome.
  • "was the key to Union victory in the West" - you need to explain why (it was the final significant barrier to Union control of the Mississippi)
    • Done.
  • "Grant arrived in Chattanooga by horseback, implementing plans to relieve the siege and resume the offensive" - his development of these plans should be noted (this wording suggests that he was "implementing" someone else's plans)
    • Reworded, should be better now.
  • The para on Grant's assumption of command of all Union Armies should note that he seriously considered making his headquarters in the West
    • Done.
  • "his headquarters with Meade's army" - it would be better to specify that this was the famous Army of the Potomac
    • Done.
  • "Grant and Lincoln devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives" - did Lincoln play a significant role in developing this strategy? My understanding is that he generally let Grant lead the war effort (you could note that Grant's appointment allowed Lincoln to surrender some of the day-to-day direction of the war effort, which he'd been wanting to do for some time but had been unwilling to do as he lacked confidence in Grant's predecessors)
    • I think you're right. I deleted "and Lincoln".
  • "Depending on Lee's actions, Grant would join forces with Butler's armies and be fed supplies from the James" - the first part of this sentence implies that Grant had several options planned to take into account Lee's different potential responses, but then the second part of the sentence specifies only one option
    • True. I reworded.
  • "The costly assault at Cold Harbor was the second of two battles in the war that Grant later said he regretted" - what was the other one?
    • An assault on the Vicksburg trenches. I added a parenthetical to that effect.
  • "Unbeknownst to Lee" - this is a bit confusing. "Without being detected by Lee" perhaps?
    • Done.
  • The "Commanding general" section is probably a bit over-long: the years of political manoeuvring could be covered in less detail Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • We've trimmed some where we could over the last few days, but I'll take another look this afternoon.
      • The para starting with 'When the Senate reinstated Stanton' could be trimmed considerably given that it provides a blow by blow account of events. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I've tightened the language some, but I'm afraid that losing any more will obscure the reasons behind Johnson's impeachment and breach with Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Nick-D, are these all resolved to your satisfaction? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D:, is there anything else that needs fixing here? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the delay - I'll follow up later today Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of Grant's military career now looks good. My only additional comment relates to Grant met with Brigadier General William T. Sherman, and the two readied their troops to attack a Confederate army of roughly equal strength at Corinth, Mississippi, a vital railroad junction" - this implies that Sherman held an position of equal seniority to Grant: this is not correct, as Sherman was one of the several divisional commanders in Grant's army. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Great, thanks for your review. I tweaked the language in the Shiloh section to make clear that Grant was senior to Sherman. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:UlyssesSGrantSignature.svg: what's the original source for this?
    • I left a query on the original uploader's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
      • To follow up, User:Connormah replied "if I recall correctly this is a trace from a previously uploaded image here on Wikipedia from years ago." --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, we should include more details on the image description page, but even that is a bit...vague. Any idea what previous image was being traced? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Battle_of_Fort_Donelson.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:VicksburgBlockade.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, without which the copyright tag cannot be verified. Same problem with File:Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpg
  • File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg, File:Kalakaua_Grant_state_visit_1874.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed the first. I could find no good source info for the second, so I replaced it with File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg, which has better credentials (and is a better picture, in my opinion).
  • File:US-$50-GC-1928-Fr-2404.jpg: reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you want here. Should I delete the CC 4.0 license? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria, these are all fixed except the last. What should I do with that one? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think so, but there's also an OTRS tag on it - any idea what that message says? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • No idea. I left a note on the uploader's talk page, so hopefully he'll be able to help us sort it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I removed the CC 4.0 tag (which may have been part of the original template I was given). Any other questions please ping me.--Godot13 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers[edit]

Grant's funeral train

Grant's posthumous journey on his funeral train is a landmark event in Grant's biography. It was of course received at West Point and New York by many dignitaries, military and the general public and covered by newspapers across the country. Back in 2010 when I created the Funeral section I added an engraved image of the train rolling into West Point -- a fine hi'res image -- but it was removed after being in the article for several years. If it's not going to cause problems I'd recommend restoring the image to the lower portion of the Memoirs and death section, next (on the left) to the paragraph covering the event, as there's plenty of room for it there -- or at least link to that image, rather than to the generic article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there's room for both images if I use the {{stack}} template. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! As Grant's journey on the funeral train is the final event in Grant's biography it seemed important to include this image, which, imo, speaks louder than words. I'm wondering if there are any photos in the PD taken of this funeral train. Seems such an event would have been photographed somewhere along the line. I'll poke around just for the fun of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
See also
  • Since Grant was in numerous Civil War battles it might do well for the readers, i.e.esp students and Civil War buffs, to put List of American Civil War battles under See also. Grant is mentioned 17 times in the list.
  • Is the link to History of the United States (1865–1918) in that section perhaps too broad an article, with topics that are, at best, very tangential to Grant, while most of its topics have nothing at all to do with Grant.? e.g. It covers the Progressive Era, Women's Suffrage, the Spanish American War, World War I, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd just as soon get rid of the whole section. "See also" topics, if they're relevant, tend to be linked already in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Thst's generally true, but certainly not always. Numerous FAs have See also sections. The list is quite relevant, yet not linked. I'd recommend replacing the History of the United States (1865–1918) link with List of American Civil War battles. I'm sure most Civil War enthusiasts would welcome it as well as many of the general readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Conditional support

The content overall is great, very well sourced, but its placement could use a little management as sections go. Also one of the sections should be renamed. See Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Support a well-compiled piece Grant himself would be quite proud of! Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Comments from Karanacs[edit]

I think the article is very well-written, but I share the concern above that this is just too long. The events are important, yes, but there's detail here and there that, IMO, doesn't need to be included in this parent article. Just as examples:

a) The information about his order for Jewish expulsion is presented twice - one when it happened, once for the political campaign. Seems like this could be consolidated and just referenced once.
b) I don't really care who he appointed Postmaster General, etc. I would expect most of the information on his appointments to be in the child article on his presidency, and not here.
c) The paragraph that quotes from his memoirs about the Mexican-American War is, IMO, too long and detailed for this article.

Even in places where the content needs to stay, I think there is room for significant tightening of the prose. I really hate to say this, because it is beautifully written, it's just too much. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs:: Thanks for your comments. There's not much I can say about length that I didn't already say to Brianboulton after his comments above. I'd only add that it's been trimmed some since then, and that if it's a constant battle to keep the article as small as it is. With a figure as written-about as Grant, there is a massive trove of information to choose from that, somewhat counterintuitively, makes it harder to write a high-quality article. I'm sure there's language that can be tightened (I've acted on your first example, in fact) but trimming too much is difficult. But I'll take another pass and see where the prose could be more economical. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I really do sympathize. I just nominated Texas Revolution. After my first draft, it was 12.5k words. I eventually managed to cut 20% to get it down around 10k (and I still worry it is too long). I'd expect an article like this to be 10-12k. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Each sub-section for the individual Civil War battles are much more lengthy and detailed than is the coverage for the Mexican-American War and Early life and marriage, yet I don't see any significant reductions being made in those sections. Every one of these battles has a dedicated article for it. There is no dedicated article for Grant's, family and marriage, so it would seem these topics should get more priority than they are presently getting. After all, this is Grant's Biography. Also, there are other FA (Reagan, Obama, etc) that exceed the guideline for page length and there were no issues because it was warranted, per all the important content involved, so we need to stop holding 'page length' up as the most important consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: I take your point, and I won't argue with you about how long is too long; reasonable minds may disagree. But the consensus among my co-editors is against any large-scale reductions, and I agree with them. Since this version, we've cut more than a thousand words. I think that's all we can do. Thanks again for reading, and good luck with your own nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm alone on this matter, but I personally determine things to be "too short" or "too long" by detail on key aspects rather than prose size/raw size alone. FA criterion 1b is comprehensiveness (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context) while criterion 4 is length (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style). I understand not including certain pieces, and would encourage to address specific parts that seem extra. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS, Coemgenus, Cmguy777, Rjensen: Snuggums hits the nail on the head. Comprehensiveness should be our major concern. While the major contributing editors on the Grant page have done wonderful work, they seem to have become overly weary of page length, which is not completely unreasonable. However, in the process comprehensiveness seems to have been neglected from time to time. You can read my comments to that effect, with examples, on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: If the article were reduced anymore then content and clarification would be lost too...Presidents have Cabinets who can either impact an administration positively or negatively...Grant's Cabinet goes back and forth...I would not reduce the article size. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

St. Elmo (1914 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a lost silent film that may or may not have been the directorial debut of the influential (if now largely ignored) J. Gordon Edwards. At GAC, I opined that I probably wouldn't even bother bringing this to FAC, but have reconsidered that stance. The primary concern left unresolved from the GA process is the deeply anemic plot summary; unlike most modern films, plot summaries for lost films require citations just like everything else (as the film can no longer source itself). Here, I've taken what I could from four different discussions of the plot ... and can still only offer 114 words for what would have been in the ballpark of a two-hour movie. Unfortunately, further plot details (I know there was a "small child" involved at some point, but nothing further there) seem as lost as the film itself. I leave it to the opinions of other editors whether that should be considered a comprehensiveness concern.

As means of disclosure, I am a WikiCup participant and this would be an eligible FA, if promoted. Additionally, I will note upfront that this would be one of the 10 shortest FA articles. I promise my next trip to FAC will be a more robust piece, regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support and comments I'm happy to support as is, just a couple of suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see some point to red-linking the two companies once, but not a second time—they won't have changed their status during the course of the article
  • Any idea how this film (or Balboa's films in general) were lost?
  • It has been my understanding that key topics can (and should) be linked from both the lead and the body. In this case, that makes them stand out a bit, because they're currently redlinks, although I don't intend them to be that way for too long (Box Office will go blue via redirect once I fix the mess that is the current structure for Fox pages; Balboa ... I should probably get a stub together for until I have time to do a full write-up). As for how this film was lost, the problem here really is sourcing. The Jura and Bardin history of Balboa is the definitive work, and even they hedge and provide a non-answer to why Balboa's films have such a dismal survival rate. For this one in particular, since Fox (as Box Office) bought the rights to distribution of the film, and continued to distribute it after Fox Films' incorporation, it's almost certain that it was destroyed alongside the actual Fox films in the 1937 vault fire. But Fox has never publicly admitted just what burned (there were legal issues), and no reliable source (well, no any source, actually) that I can find outright makes that observation. So including it would be original research, even though it's probably correct. I can add some generic text about the fate of silent films in general, if that's desirable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with those answers. I thought it was possible that the fate of the film was unknown/unverifiable, just checking that there was nothing omitted. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A couple of minor points that don't affect my support:

  • Perhaps mention the name of the unrelated Evans novel in the lead?
  • I found a newspaper advertisement of the era crediting "Dad Leonard" rather than "Pop Leonard"; not sure if that's of interest.
  • Ah, the inconsistencies of 1910s film credits! "Pop" is far more common than "Dad", and I'm inclined to think that too much of this would be out of place in the article for this particular film (he is only the eighth-billed actor, after all). But it's something I'll keep in mind if I ever get around to improving the Gus Leonard article, for certain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I figured it was probably too trivial for this article; just thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Balboa was not a film distributor, so in May 1914 contracted with William Fox's Box Office Attractions Company": missing "they" after "1914"?
  • I'm not sure the previous construction is wrong, but done regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks -- I could be wrong but I think it will read more naturally to most people that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Fox Film Corporation, Box Office's corporate successor, continued to distribute St. Elmo": it took me a second to realize that you used "continued" because Fox continued to distribute the film after they succeeded Box Office. This might read more naturally as "The Fox Film Corporation continued to distribute St. Elmo after they took over/succeeded Box Office in 19xx".
  • Rewrote this. Thoughts on the new construction? I'm open to fiddling around with this more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's definitely an improvement. I think the half after the semicolon is fine; the first half might perhaps be improved if you have the sources to be more specific about the nature of the transition: did Fox purchase Box Office? Merge with it? Take it over after bankruptcy? But it works perfectly well as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an ... interesting question. Ask four sources, get five answers. Koszarski claims that William Fox "reorganized" Box Office into Fox Film. On the other hand, Langman says that Fox was incorporated separately and then "absorbed" its predecessor. Solomon discusses Fox Film's incorporation process in considerable detail, but glosses over how Box Office's fate was handled. Other others provide a variety of vague descriptions of the process, not all of which mean interchangeable things: that Box Office was "replaced" by, "renamed", or "became" Fox. In any case, both were privately held companies owned by the same guy, so the precise details were probably mostly of concern to the corporate lawyers. There certainly wasn't a bankruptcy or an explicit merger of the type that later created 20th Century Fox. I can categorically state that Fox Film was not created through the merger of Box Office and the Greater New York Film Rental Company, despite that being the explanation in many less-reliable sources; that misreading of the timeline apparently first appeared in Wikipedia all the way back in 2001 (although I've recently removed it from the relevant articles). I am ... open to suggestions about a preferred wording here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's quite some variation in the sources. In this article I don't think the reader needs the details if they're going to be complicated, so perhaps your current wording is fine. Alternatively, how about "Box Office Attractions ceased to exist in 1915; Fox Films, also owned by William Fox, inherited Box Office's assets, and continued to..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I went through my sources to see if there was any clearer chronology. No such luck. I've taken another stab at cleaning up this section of text. Hopefully it reads better now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "was the much earlier": presumably this should be "was much the earlier".
  • The suggested change reads as unnatural to me. Perhaps this is an ENGVAR issue? Regardless, I solved the problem by excising "much" entirely; it wasn't needed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    OK -- my ENGVAR is mostly BrEng, but I've lived in the U.S. for decades, so I can't be sure which side of the Atlantic my ear for a phrase is on at any given time. But not an issue since cutting it works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't give the date of the original novel, which wouldn't hurt, and would actually be helpful to the reader when you say it was much later than Beulah.
  • Was given in the lead (1866) but not in the body, which was an error. Added the date of the St. Elmo novel to the discussion of the film's production. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oops -- it was indeed in the lead; sorry. Adding it to the production section is helpful too, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Diego Costa[edit]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Diego Costa, a contemporary footballer for Chelsea and Spain. The article recently passed GA status. It has wide content, ranging from his childhood, to his professional career, to praise and criticism of his style of play. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono

  • Consider expanding the lead just a little. It may not be 100% needed.
  • Ref #7 is used extensively in the "Early life" section. I don't see any copyright issues but consider how many times the ref needs to be linked.
  • "His first European adventure..." may not be appropriate under "Early career".
  • Wikilinking "relegation" might be useful to those unfamiliar with the sport. "Aggregate" or "tie" wcould also help since the concept is brought up a few times.
  • If possible and if you feel that it would benefit the reader, consider expanding the two single sentence paragraphs in the "Early career" section. This is also noticed later in the article.
  • Under "2013-2014", "...he celebrated this a few days later in the first match of the new season, scoring a brace in a 3–1 win at Sevilla." might benefit from a different term.
  • "...Atlético sought to cure this injury for before the upcoming..." The entire line should also be broken up since it is a little long.
  • "Costa scored 8 goals during the Champions League campaign..." I believe "8" should be eight per MoS but could be wrong in this instance.
  • "... Chelsea announced on 1 July 2014 that they 'can confirm an agreement has been reached with Atletico Madrid for the transfer of Diego Costa' after they had agreed to meet the £32 million buy-out clause in Costa's contract". Can you rewrite that without the quote. It makes the line unnecessarily clumsy.
  • In regards to the request to change national teams, can you clarify FIFA's decision? It is not entirely clear and I thought (maybe incorrectly) that something like that was usually blocked.
    • Done. There are more complex regulations than the one I've included (for example, Mikel Arteta was not allowed to play for England because he was not a British citizen when he played for Spain Under-16, while Costa never played youth international at all) '''tAD''' (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Under "Playing style", it is mentioned that he refutes allegations that he deliberately aims to injure opponents. Can you add a line about these allegations?
  • Italics for certain publishers in the references (UEFA, FIFA) are not consistent with some being italicized and others not.
    • I'll come on to this soon. I think such matters come from "edit creep", different editors' modus operandi over the years '''tAD''' (talk)
  • I made a couple minor edits related to voice and dashes. Feel free to change the first if you deem it necessary.
  • Are "BDFutbol profile" and "Diego Costa at National-Football-Teams.com" common external links in the topic area? No worries if they are.
  • Images:
    • Can we use "Costa on loan at Rayo Vallecano..." with CarlosRM marked at the bottom? I could have sworn there was a line about this in the MoS or tutorial. Can't find it, though. If you want to go above and beyond, add some alttext (no longer appears to be a requirment for FAC but help people out)
    • "Costa executing an overhead kick..." and "Costa in action with Atletico..." pinch the text. One of the needs to be moved.
    • "Costa in action with Atletico..." should use the "upright" parameter.
  • Multiple deadlinks: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Diego_Costa

Most of the above are minor or meant as suggestions. The image and ref formatting and dead links are my primary concerns. Overall, I expect to support this after you address my comments and with a little cleanup since it jumps out as a fantastic article. I had no idea that the guy was scoring so often.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I will make edits soon. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: you seem to have forgotten to list this at WP:FAC! Maralia (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I kind of think it was funny that it was listed at FOOTY and not FAC :P I inserted the template at FAC in the correct place chronologically.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm ready for a massive heave-ho of the references very soon. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sardines (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sardines" is a free-standing, half-hour story which introduces 12 characters (played by 12 actors familiar to British viewers) and manages to cover the themes of murder, incest, sexual abuse, vengeance and adultery. Most of the episode takes place inside a wardrobe. It's a comedy, but I'm not sure the humour would be everyone's cup of tea- you can see clips here and here. The article was promoted to GA last year, and more recently formed part of a good topic. The second series of Inside No. 9 will be broadcast this year, and, while I'm working on articles for the second series, I'd like to see if I can push some of the articles about the first series to FA level. I look forward to your comments! This will probably be a WikiCup nomination. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Inside_No_9,_Sardines_poster.jpg: could we fill in the "n.a." parameters, please? They are applicable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Quite right- I've expanded the rationale considerably. Thanks for your comment. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

I wish I'd seen this, real League of Gentlemen stuff. Near the end, I wondered if "watched my more people" might be better than "more highly viewed", but I have no real quibbles, so I'm happy to support as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jim- I personally really enjoyed the series. Keep your eyes open for the second series coming at some point in the next couple of months! J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • External links are good and no DABs.
  • Article and book titles need to be in title case as per MoS.
    • I prefer to use title case for book titles but not article titles. Could you point to the piece of the MOS you're referring to specifically, please? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure, it's MOS:CT. The only difference between book and article titles is italicization, not capitalization.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. It's certainly not explicit, and a recent discussion reached no real conclusion. (I also note that many other FAs do not follow this rule- Rodrigues starling and Money in the Bank (2011) were both promoted this month, and prefer sentence case for article titles.) I accept that (say) journal and newspaper titles should be capitalised, but I am not convinced that article titles should be- article titles are sometimes extremely long. My understanding is that professional style guides disagree on this, and as our MOS isn't explicit (individual articles are not listed anywhere, as far as I can see, as "works of art or artifice") I would have thought we can choose either way, as long as we're consistent. If there's a consensus to change this, I will, but I really do think it's ugly. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In several places your cites are out of numerical sequence.
    • Fixed the one I could see. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • One duplicate link for The Observer in the main body.
  • The prose is pretty smooth; nothing jumped out at me on first read. I'll give it another go through once these comments have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments! J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments. I've made a couple of minor copyedits; please revert at will.

  • "As such, the story was not initially about the game of sardines": what does "as such" mean here?
    • I've rephrased- I think it was clearer in an earlier version of that paragraph. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't need "[o]ur" when you uncap an initial uppercase letter; you can silently make it "our". Similarly with "[w]ickedly" and "[b]eing".
  • There's a lot of repetition of "writing for" at the start of the reception section. It's not easy to come up with smoother ways to say this but I think something should be done. Perhaps "Kendall, writing for the Daily Telegraph, gave the episode four out of five stars, as did A, B and C, writing for X, Y and Z (respectively); Veronica Lee, writing for The Arts Desk, gave it five out of five."?
  • "Allusions to past unhappiness is a typical trope": "allusions" is plural, so I think this has to be restructured.
    • I think I can use "unhappiness" as an uncountable noun. The allusions are plural, but the unhappiness is uncountable. Compare "allusions to religious scripture" or "allusions to ancient philosophy". I can rephrase if you like, but I think it's pleasantly prosaic. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      I think we're looking at different issues here -- the problem I see is that the subject of "is" is "allusions", not "unhappiness". The phrase "to past unhappiness" is descriptive of the allusions and doesn't form the subject of the sentence, so there's a number problem in the verb. How about "Allusions to past unhappiness occur frequently in Shearsmith's and Pemberton's work"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      Sorry, I did misunderstand- I do think "allusions to past unhappiness" could be my example of a (single) trope, so could be read a as a singular noun phrase, but I accept that it does read a little oddly. I have rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      Struck; and I've supported above. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very clean article; I expect to support once these minor issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review- it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

When I first read through this article I thought it was pretty cool that I was able to follow along without have ever sen the show or any of the characters. That along with good writing and adherence to the MOS is enough to Support. A few notes that might improve the article, though:

  • The image of Timothy West is forced at 200px unlike the others. Is this intentional?
  • Is it beneficial to have the "Notes" column of the table sortable?
    • I've rejigged the table to make sortability useful- good spot. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the "Analysis" could be improved. "Dark" or "Black" humour is mentioned in 3 of the paragraphs. I think that its mention in paragraph 3 should be in paragraph 4. This is primarily a concern over maybe moving a line or two .
    • Actually, the black/dark humour is only discussed in paragraph 3. In paragraph 2, I'm discussing the overall tone of the episode (starts comedic, becomes darker) and in paragraph 4, I'm discussing the themes (including "dark" themes like child sexual abuse). J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. (Mandatory disclaimer: Reviewer is also in the Wikicup)Cptnono (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, review and observant comments- it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first king of Hungary who is also venerated as a holy king by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. This is the second FAC of the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

This looks very interesting – the sort of history we never learn about in English schools. For the moment I have a few minor issues arising in the lead, but I hope I can find time for a fuller reading later:

  • Comma needed after "Holy Roman Emperor" near end of second paragraph
  • Third para: I'm not sure about "ensured" – even draconian measures can be resisited and thwarted. I'd prefer a more neutral word such as "sought" or "encouraged"
  • Final para: De-link Hungary – we don't normally wikilink countries. Also, it's not clear why Bishop Gerard is included in the report of Stephen's canonization.
  • Beyond the lead, there are a couple of uncited statements in the article: see third paragraph of "Early years" section, and first paragraph of "Artistic representation".

I'll return later; meanwhile I hope others will engage with this article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review and comments. I started to modify the article taking into account your comments. Please let me know if any further action is needed. I am not an expert in the field of arts and I sought assistance from WikiProject Hungary. If no reference were added within a couple of days, I will delete the non-referenced texts. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Freedom of panorama in Hungary only extends to works displayed outdoors, so File:Szentjobb1.jpg will need to indicate the copyright status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your message. Fakirbakir, would you help me again? I am still too simple to understand the above remark. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Nikkimaria and Karanacs, I deleted the picture, because I cannot fix the problem. Please let me know if there is a better solution. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
comments by Karanacs. I am very close to support.

First, I just want to say thank you for focusing on this period of time and region. It's wonderful to see the history being filled in here on WP :) Second, I'm normally uncomfortable with the use of primary sources in articles, but I think you did a very careful job of placement.

  • There are citation needed tags in the artistic representation section.
  • citations should be in order at the end of a sentence; for example in the 2nd sentence in the Active foreign policy section, ref 106 comes before 59
  • I think there are too many images in the article. Starting with the active foreign policy section, it's just a continuous stream of pretty down the right side, and it is a little much.

Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, thank you for your comments and support. I put the citations in order and deleted some images. I wait some more days before deleting the unreferenced sentences from the last section. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Brianboulton and Karanacs, I'd like to inform you, that I added references and there are no unreferenced sentences in the article any more. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


It looks better. I'm waiting for nikkimaria's image question to be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton returns:

First, I must apologise for my long absence from this review, but until recently have not found much time to engage with the article. I have started a closer reading, now, and have noted a number of points which I think require attention or at least considerstion. None of them are major issues.

    • Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You need to establish that the various years introced at the start of the lead are CE
    • I added AD to the first date. Actually, I am not sure that either AD or CE are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It is necessary to mention AD or CE in the first date, as not all readers will be aware of the period, at least initially. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hungarian chronicles unanimously report..." → "Hungarian chronicles agree..." – less of a mouthful?
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a tendency towards multiple references for quite simple statements where one good ref would do, e.g. "However, Saint Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention this event".[16][17][18] - why is that worth three citations? Or "Koppány, who held the title Duke of Somogy, had for many years administered the regions of Transdanubia south of Lake Balaton."[26][29][33] There are plenty more of these.
  • "...opponents of Christianity represented by Stephen and his predominantly German retinue." It needs to be "of the Christianity
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "even writes of" is too emphatic, non-neutral. You should delete "even"
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword" – the quote needs ascription. It's not clear where it's from.
    • Sorry, I do not understand the above remark. There is a reference to the Illuminated Chronicle in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The full sentence read: "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army." The punctuation was off and the construction awkward. I have revised it to: "Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38] placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army."
  • "He also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithes to this monastery..." What monastery?
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "If the latter report is valid, the dioceses of Veszprém and Győr are the most probable candidates". Conjectural statements such as this must be specifically ascribed.
    • Scholar added. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "When ordering the display of one part of Koppány's quartered corpse..." → "By ordering the display..." etc
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Who do you mean by "the German monarch". If it's Otto, best to say so.
    • Modified. (I opted for an other solution.) Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That takes me to the end of the "Consolidation" section, so I've a way to go yet, but perhaps you would look at these meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The rest of my review follows
Active foreign policy (c. 1009–1031)
  • I had forgotten that Boleslav was king of Poland. A reminder in the text would be useful. And, unless there are other Boleslavs in the story, I don't think you have to add "the Brave" each time he is mentioned.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a town identified with Ohrid by Györffy" only makes sense after several readings and use of the link. Better phrasing might be: "...Cesaries", which Györffy identifies as the present-day town of Ohrid".
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's legends also wrote of 60 wealthy Pechenegs..." Legends don't write. They may be written. Perhaps "refer to " or "include stories of", or similar.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This section is headed "Active foreign policy", but includes topics unrelated to foreign policy, e.g. minting of coins, settling of pilgrims etc. You should either relocate these bits, or find a more inclusive section title.
    • Thank you. I would prefer the present title without changing the text. I think that the main feature of that period is the active foreign policy. For instance, if somebody works for the XZW Group between 1990 and 2015, we can say that those are his "Working for the XZW Group" even if he had an appendicitis, fathered three sons and four daughters and travelled to Antarctica, if we think that his working for that company was the most featuring detail of his life during those days. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "...is also dated by many historians to the very end of the 1020s..." I'd say the words "also" and "very" are reundant here.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "had taken his power from the Greeks" – attribute.
    • Thank you. Included. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " who adopted an active foreign policy". This doesn't convey much. Do you mean an "aggressive" foreign policy?
    • Thank you. Modified ("offensive foreign policy"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "informed on" → "informed of"
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase "in the autumn of 1027" would fit better at theb start of the sentence.
    • Thank you. Phrase moved. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Last years (1031–1038)
  • "Stephen's legends writes..." Mangled prose, and as I said earlier, legends do not "write"
    • Thank you. Modified ("refers to"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Family
  • The statement introducing the chart reads: "The following family tree presents Stephen's ancestors and his relatives who are mentioned in the article". This is not quite the case. For example, Vazul, described as Stephen's cousin, is nowhere to be seen in the tree.
    • Thank you. Vazul added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Legacy
  • Andrew I, who died before December 1060 according to the link, refers to "King St. Stephen", yet Stephen was not canonized until 1083 – which is a little odd.
    • Thank you. Reference to the source (a 14th-century chronicle) added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held his dethroned cousin Solomon in captivity at Visegrád." This introduces new material which will baffle readers unless you add a word or two of explanation.
    • Thank you. Info of the imprisonment of Solomon added in a previous sentence. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "confessor king": would a pipe-link to, say, Confessor of the Faith help readers to understand what you mean by "confessor king"?
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "An annual procession has celebrated the relic since 1938, except between 1950 and 1987, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government". This doesn't quite read right, since the excluded years represent half of the total period. Suggest rewrite: "An annual procession celebrating the relic was instituted in 1938, and continued until 1950, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government. It was resumed in 1988".
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am distressed to see Zoltán Kodály curtly introduced as "another Hungarian composer". Surely he is a little more distinguished than that?
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal issue: I found the frequent insertions of chunks of quoted material rather distracting. I wasn't sure whether these formed a necessary part of the narrative, or if they were there to illustrate or emphasise points already made. Either way, there were rather a lot of them – are you sure they are all necessary?

    • Thank you. Two quotes deleted. I think we should insert some quote to illustrate points already made. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you have found this review helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, first of all, I must apologize for failing to answer for days, but I did not notice that you had meanwhile completed your review. I highly appreciate your comprehensive and bold review. Please let me know if further actions are needed to improve the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
On the "Active foreign policy" heading, I don't think your argument for keeping it, unamended, holds good. For a start, you don't need "active". With or without that, it's a very specific title to use for the period it covers, and the non-foreign aspects within the section are quite substantial – the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. My preferred option would be to incorporate the three paragaphs into a separate subsection, but at the very least you should amend the title to, perhaps, "Foreign and domestic policies". Ping me when you've resolved this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thank you for your comments. I inserted two new subtitles. Let me know if further changes are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That arrangement looks good to me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: Borsoka has dealt effectively with the issues I have raised in the course of this review. I believe the article now meets the featured article criteria, and hope to see it promoted soon (the nominator's first, I believe). A request for further reviewers would not be amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "relled": relied?
  • Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is being nominated to join the relatively short tradition of other Sounders winning Open Cups ('09, '10, and '11. It should meet or exceed the FA standards set by other articles seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase.

As the primary author, my usual shortfall is general copy editing. I feel that any issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, I used Sounder At Heart as a source in a few instances. The sources from that site relied on writers who have press badges and not general user generated content. Please let me know if any improvement is needed to reach FA and I will be on it immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi—can you state whether this is a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I am participating in the Wikicup.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia: This does need a good copyedit. Examples of issues:

  • “the The Cup”
  • Carlos Valdés (footballer)|Carlos Valdes]]”
  • “Pappa, who had just returned from international duty with the Guatemala,”
  • “There first big chance came”,
  • ”Casey received a yellow card at the 57th minute an was later replaced”
  • ”were able to effectively counter Philadelphia's attempts attack in the second half”
  • ”While being praised as good tactics by one Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins due to a muscle strain.”
    • This now reads "While being praised as good tactics by a Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins was due to a muscle strain" which brings up some new issues:
      • Presumably the intent is that Schmid was being praised for good tactics (not as good tactics), and that Martins was not started due to a muscle strain (not the decision...was due to a muscle strain).
      • The relationship between the two halves of the sentence is not immediately clear. A quote from Liviu Bird clarifies what Martins not starting has to do with good tactics—but the quote is back in the Extra time section. Suggest moving it from Extra time to Post-match for better context; the quote is technically postgame commentary anyway.
That is better. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ”THe Sounders received”
  • Image captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption forms a complete sentence (and none of the current captions does).

This is not an exhaustive list; someone needs to go through from top to bottom for grammar, spelling, etc. That being said, though, the copyedit that’s needed here is not a particularly intensive one, since there is not a lot of complicated language or nuance in this sort of article, so it should be pretty fast and easy once you find someone to do it. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The GA reviewer did a good job then I added a few lines (most are the ones you mentioned). Nothing like a good 'ol FAC to remind me that I suck at typing. All mentioned are fixed. Also, I removed the periods from the captions. I tend to agree with you but have added them in articles I work on due to the insistence of other reviews at GA and FA. Can you point me to something in the MoS for future discussions?Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
RE the image caption punctuation question, you can refer people to these:
MOS:FULLSTOP: "Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period."
MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
This part of MOS is fairly longstanding policy; off the top of my head, I'd say it's been in force since at least 2008, so reviewers should be familiar with it. People do tend to trip up over that last bit concerning multiple sentences/fragments, though. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Maralia: Coemgenus went through it a couple times. Do the prose look good to you now? Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks!.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I will take another look, but my eyesight is pretty compromised right now (busted glasses, lousy contacts) so it might take me a few days to make it through. Maralia (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Ugh... take your time. I tried using Gorilla glue on my glasses the other day and they are now half broken with glue dried on the lenses.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This is definitely in better shape after Coemgenus' review. I made a few minor copyediting fixes tonight. Some other remaining issues:
  • “Attendance at PPL Park would only be 15,256, the lowest for an Open Cup final in six years.” - This sentence is out of place in the Pre-match/Venue selection section.
I found a line in the post-match review of the game that it ties in with.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • “The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as winning the MLS but it is still considered an important achievement.” - by "winning the MLS" you mean winning the MLS Cup, yes?
Fixed and wikilinkedCptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”The 2014 Open Cup was an exceptional challenge due to the MLS season being interrupted by the World Cup.” - Doesn't this happen every four years? 'Exceptional' might be overkill.
Fixed by removing "exceptional" and added that it was due to player call-ups.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”The home team kept control of the first half and continued creating chances into Seattle's penalty area.” - Can you reword this? Google finds almost no other uses of "creating chances into" and I gotta agree it's super weird.
Almost naughty... Changed to "...and continued creating scoring opportunities."Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”As runners-up, the Union was awarded $60,000.” - This mixes singular (was awarded) and plural (runners-up). In the US, we would go with the singular "As runner-up, the Union was awarded".
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Maralia (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Maralia: Thanks for being so thorough.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

It's nice to see this here. I actually attended this match, but I promise not to add any original research! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede
  • "While both teams created multiple chances, Philadelphia unsuccessfully attempted a comeback and took firm control of the match at the end." This seems to suggest the Union took control of the match at the end. Didn't they lose? Or do you mean they looked to be in control before the start of extra time?
I see what you mean. I added a couple lines to expand on the thought. I am trying to convey the credit reporters gave to Philly.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Philadelphia Union
  • "Philadelphia were almost eliminated..." I understand the convention in European soccer is to treat teams as plurals, but in American sports we treat them as a singular noun ("Philadelphia was almost...") Unless there's some differing convention in U.S. soccer I don't know about.
Fixed 2 times.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "winning silverware" Kind of informal.
Fixed 3 timesCptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC
  • "The Seattle Sounders won the title..." You should say which title. The Open Cup? The MLS championship?
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Seattle were leading..." Again, probably "was", I think.
Fixed
  • "the game went to kicks" This might be impenetrable to an outsider. Maybe say "penalty kicks" with an appropriate wikilink.
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Analysis
  • "Philadelphia had never been to a final and it was their first chance at winning silverware since their inception 5 years earlier." You say this earlier. Maybe something shorter, like "For Philadelphia, it represented their first-ever chance at a trophy."
Nice. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "depth that could traverse" I don't think "traverse" is right here. "Withstand" maybe. "Survive"?
"withstand" works.
  • "The all-time record between the clubs was Philadelphia with two wins and Seattle with three." A little fuzzy. Maybe something like "The all-time record between the clubs stood at 3–2 in favor of Seattle."
Agreed. Fixed.
First half
  • "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left. He was continuously able to get past Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." I think the prose could be improved with more active verbs, less "to be" and "to have". For example, the sentences quoted above might be better tightened up as "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left, where he repeatedly passed Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." See what I mean? The verb we're concerned about is "to pass" -- Wenger passed Yedlin -- not that he was able to pass him.
A dozen instances adjusted.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Second half
  • Active voice also helps clear up the writing. Instead of "No substitutions were made at halftime", you could say "Neither team made a substitution at halftime." More direct.
I made a few changes. Does anything else jump out?Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In Injury time..." Should "Injury" be capitalized? I was going to change it myself, but I wasn't completely sure.
You might be right. I couldn't tell from the main Wikipedia article and changed it to "extra time".Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Extra time
  • "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa were able to effectively counter..." Why not just "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa effectively countered..."
Fixed.Cptnono (talk)
  • "...when he was able to make header on the Sounders goal." Here we have the "was able" problem again, and I'm also not sure of the expression "make header". I watch a lot of soccer, but I'm no expert on the terminology.
I think one of my favorite sports writers uses it or something. Ripped a bunch out.
Post-match
  • "The final was Philadelphia's first chance at a championship in their five-year history." You could probably lose this line -- you've said it twice already.
Agreed. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The performance was poor enough..." This sounds like you're talking about the teams' performance. I assume you mean the internet feed didn't work right? Should clarify.
Fixed?
  • Nice article. It was more enjoyable than the forty-five minutes it took me to get out of the parking lot in Chester that night. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus:. Wow, nice stuff. I think some good adjustments were made. I hope the game was a blast (regardless of who you were supporting)!Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • These changes look good. I made a few more copyedits--if you think they change the meaning of what you've written, please feel free to revert.
  • In the Seattle section, you link the 2010 and 2011 finals, but not 2009. Is there no article for it? If not, it wouldn't be wrong to include a redlink to encourage creation of that article.
It is linked a couple paragraphs above.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You could also use a citation for the last sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I ended up removing it. There wasn't anything in RS relating the deal to the 2014 final so it was a little out of place.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, looks good. I'm happy to support.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

At the moment I don't think the prose is at FA level. I'm not going to oppose immediately, but I think some work remains to be done here. The problem is not that there are grammatical errors or specific places with poorly chosen words or phrasing; it's that the writing is often flat and lacking any rhythm. For example, the lead -- particularly the second and third paragraphs -- reads like a staccato series of short sentences, with no flow between them. If you look at the lead of hermeneutic style, or German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations, two other FACs I've recently reviewed, I think you can see that those paragraphs flow more smoothly -- the sentences are varied in rhythm and length, and it sounds more like a narrative. To put it another way, a well written lead sounds like someone interesting explaining the topic to you; this article's lead sounds like someone reciting some of the key facts. Try reading the lead out loud while imagining that you're telling an acquaintance about the game. Would you use this phrasing? I doubt it; you'd use connected sentences, and you'd make it into a narrative. That's what needs to be done here.

The body is in better shape than the lead, but there are instances of this problem throughout; see the Seattle Sounders section for more examples. I have read the article twice, once fairly closely and once skimming, and didn't see much else wrong other than the prose style; I'll come back and take another look once the prose is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I'm admittedly flat and boring when writing prose to keep it to the point. The fear of being to over the top in my fandom is always there and I am not Charles Dickens (CenturyLink Field is probably boring as hell to anyone who isn't interested in minor details about architecture and the local teams). Did you have ideas on lines that can be improved during your read throughs? I know that asking you to rewrite entire sections is out of the question but I would love any thoughts since it would help this and other articles.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind doing some rewriting for you, but I can't promise I'll have time. One thing you could try -- and I'm serious about this; I think it will help -- is to read through the lead a couple of times to get into your mind the key points, and then roleplay explaining the game to someone else, and video or record yourself doing the explanation. Explain it as you would in real life -- you'd try to make it interesting, rather than just reciting the facts. Transcribe that version and see how it differs from what you've got at the moment. Try it on just one of the paragraphs and see how it goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Well wow, you were right. I like the boring prose of The World Almanac but decided to recite it in the bathroom mirror instead. It is a couple feet away from my apartment's front door so now I sound crazy (it is all bachelor's on my floor of the apartment and I know at least 3 of the neighbors are soccer fans). I played with two paragraphs in the lead and the Sounders road to the final section. What do you think? Obviously I want to get this to FA now but this was a good learning experience for other articles even if this has to go through a second round in the future. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a big improvement! I'm glad that helped. I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow; in the meantime, can you tell me if you've gone through the whole article to fix similar issues? The places I mentioned were the ones where I noticed the problem most, but you might try reading the whole article out loud to yourself and see if you spot other places where it could be improved. I'll do a copyedit pass when you tell me you're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I hit the Match section a bit. I'll make another pass through (tonight or tomorrow depending on beer intake and House of Cards binging). Thanks again. Your input is actually more appreciated than a !vote.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a great compliment; I really appreciate it! Let me know when you're ready for me to go through it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I did another read through and kicked myself after seeing some needlessly repeated terms close together and tinkered with multiple lines to give it better flow.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are a huge improvement. I'm doing a copyediting pass now; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "uikwila"? Presumably a typo for Tukwila?
Yeha. FixedCptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed you're using dashes for "shoot—out"; I've changed these to hyphens, but is there a convention I don't know about that says a dash should be used?
I did "shoutout" originally but changed it to "shoot-out" based on our article Penalty shoot-out (association football)Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He ended the tournament with a total of 13 goals; one goal shy of Le Toux's modern-era total goal record of 19." Is 19 a typo for 14?
Match hard? Double checked and fixed.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "player-depleted schedule": does this mean that there were several players injured and unavailable because of a packed schedule? I think this needs some clarification if so; it's a bit too much shorthand for the average reader.
The thought was broken into two sentences. I tried to expand the second. Fixed?
Yes, that's much cleaner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Defensively, Philadelphia's Edu had become their best defender": I'd rephrase this to avoid having "defensively" and "defender" so close together. Perhaps "Defensively, Edu had become Philadelphia's strongest player"?
That works. FixedCptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No citation for the first paragraph of the Match section.
Added.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The given source doesn't support "heralded by competition organizers".
Changed it to "Although he won the Golden Boot for most goals scored..."
That fixes the issue, but the new citation is showing a date error. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources yet; will do that after you take care of the points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I did half a dozen spotchecks of the source text vs. the article. I made one change where the phrasing was pretty close to the original. One more fix needed -- "the shot lacked power and was easily saved": the source doesn't say the shot lacked power. That's the only issue left, other than the citation date issue I mentioned above.

On the assumption you'll fix both these minor issues, support. To the coords: I checked six sources and found one fairly close paraphrase, which I fixed, and two cases where a minor fact wasn't in the source (both are in my notes just above). In both cases the source did support the major information being provided, so I'm not too concerned, but I'd suggest asking for another spotcheck just to make sure these were isolated issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Edward II of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Edward II, an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art. The article reflects the current academic scholarship on Edward, and has been through Good and A Class reviews; I believe that it also meets the criteria for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class ... and I noticed that I missed some misspellings, so take this support with a grain of salt. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support: All my concerns have been addressed. Really like this article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, both in terms of general interest and the prose itself. I'm finishing A Distant Mirror, which dovetails nicely into this article. But there are minor prose issues, a little missing info, and one very confusing passage. I'm opposing only on that last one, the rest are merely comments.

    • "to help secure peace with France, but war broke out"... what war?
      • I've added an explanation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • But does the war in question have a name? Maybe a page here on the wiki? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that I can find. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
this might be the one. May I offer an assist for some copy editing? auntieruth (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, and yes. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation", do we know what sort of engine?
      • I don't think so, but will check further. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "he was knighted in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey", this confuses me. Was it not the case that a knight was a rung in the feudal ladder that he would have been part of by birthright? Is this knighting not redundant? I may just misunderstand the role of knighthood, but if that's the case I suspect I'm not alone and little expansion here would help.
      • Knighting ceremonies were a major event in the medieval period; I've added a bit to the article on knights, and wikilinked to that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "before then permanently exiling Gaveston", "then" is redundant and reads oddly to my eyes.
    • "same way that it might do in the 21st century", ditto for "do".
    • "Edward gave Isabella a psalter as a wedding gift", tricky link in here, which I always get annoyed at - I wanted to know what a psalter was, not the details of this particular one. Suggest something along the lines of "Edward gave Isabella a psalter, now known as the Isabella Psalter, as a wedding gift"
  • I'd be keen to avoid repeating psalter twice in the same sentence; the article now explains what a salter is in the first sentence, which should help. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Gaveston that he had stolen royal funds and had purloined Isabella's wedding presents", simply "stolen royal funds and Isabella's wedding presents". "purloined" is not a common term, and given the context it seems to suggest it means something different than stolen, which it doesn't.
      • Purloin isn't quite the same as stolen; it carries meaning of misappropriation, which is a wider concept than simple theft. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, under threat of excommunication should he return, where he would be given estates to support himself". This is a confusing statement, and I believe it should be broken into two sentences. But which is it... "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, where he would be given estates to support himself. He was threatened with excommunication should he return." OR "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, and was threatened with excommunication should he return. However, Edward said he would be given estates to support himself if he did."
      • Simplified a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • " but which offered to grant Edward", remove "which"?
    • "The Pope agreed to annul Gaveston's sentence of excommunication"... Ok here's the item I think needs to be addressed one way or the other. The statement above suggests this was threatened, but not carried out ("instead sent Gaveston to Dublin") seems to be at odds with the statement only a few lines above, which say it was threatened but never carried out. The next mention of the topic is later in the article and appears unrelated? This is the only problem I think needs to be corrected.
      • I've tweaked the wording - see if it makes more sense now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm still confused about this, but it's more than just the wording. Apparently the Pope actually did threaten to excommunicate Galveston. Is that correct? If so, why? What does this purely internal matter have to do with the pope at all? And why would this be an excommunication-able (??) offence? It has nothing to do with the church. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've clarified a bit more. The article probably isn't the place for a longer discussion of the role of the Church in the Middle Ages, but in brief, the Church and the medieval state were typically closely entwined. Kings of England typically depended closely on their senior clergy as administrators and government officials, while appointments and many clerical matters were of interest to, and influence by, lay rulers. Events such as the fate of Gaveston would not have been seen as an "internal" matter, but rather something the Church had a valid interest in. Excommunications could be made for various reasons, including as a tool to encourage good behaviour or to enforce peace agreements, as in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That small edit is a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley, and Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders", suggest splitting in two, "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley. Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders"
      • I've gone for a semi-colon, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • stopping at Famine and criticism for now, getting on a plane back to the GWN.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maury, thanks for this. I'll get on and action tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, all finished. It's a great article BTW! Only two last items and they're minor:
    • "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may have been hastened by depression following his imprisonment." - is this anything more than idle speculation? I suspect not, and if that is the case, I'd recommend simply removing this statement.It doesn't really add anything to the content unless we its something that is widely commented on and argued in historical circles, at which point that is the notable point. It doesn't appear to be that, though.
      • It's an argument put forward by one of his two major biographers, so I think it's worth keeping in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • As there is no way that a biographer could ever know one way or the other, I suggest adding that caveat - "According to one of his biographers, it is possible that...". Or am I incorrect, is there some sort of physical evidence they offer for this opinion? 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Phillips puts forward his reasoning in the peer-reviewed biography, partially drawing on the Brut source, and partially on modern psychology; we're already putting forward the statement in the conditional tense, so I'm not personally convinced we need to caveat it further. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, striken. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The image in the Battle of Boroughbridge appears to show the opening dispositions of the forces? In any event, it conveys very little information to the reader. I poked about a bit looking for something more suitable but failed. I'll keep looking. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the image in question. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I should be able to dig into the content and sourcing on this over the weekend, I hope. Hold this spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdyth. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Do you have some time for this now? We'd really appreciate a source review from you as well as any other comments you can make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I'm going to be snowed in tomorrow so I'll try. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Battle-of-Boroughbridge-en.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map?
  • File:Philippe4_eduard2_ludvikNavarra.jpg: source link is dead, and life+70 is redundant to life+100
  • The jewellery is PD, but we should say so explicitly
  • File:Seal_of_Edward_II-2.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Oriel_College_Charter.jpg: the uploader is not the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't find the source of the information in the Boroughbridge image on the file; will check further.
  • I've still can't find it, so have removed the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Original sources of the Phillip4 file has now been given (the Bibliotheque de Nationale archives)
  • PD element of jewellery given, plus right of panorama tag added
  • Seal's US PD tage added
  • Oriel charter tag corrected.
  • Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose (with 2 points to make)

  • per above, I did an extensive copy review. I made some changes, all noted by section labeled "tweaks". Mostly they were related to wordiness, verb tense, clarity, or a few minor issues. I also added some dates and a couple of links for clarity, and I did move a paragraph within a section (Isabella and Mortimer).
  • Point One: Parliament or parliament. You've referred to it both ways, and given that his father relied on the institution, and its regular meetings, I suggest Parliament (with a link). But this is up to you. You can do the article-wide search and replace. But it should be consistent. And you might explain why it is only small p parliament, if that's the option you select.
  • Point Two: You refer variously to "the earls" and "the barons". Well, I know what you mean, and amazingly Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining these, but we could perhaps use some clarity on that.

Well done on this. Very well done. If you want me to look again I'll be happy to do so.auntieruth (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers AuntieRuth. Parliament is now sorted, and I'll see what we can do about a link for earls and barons... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hchc2009:, would you mind posting bits from the relevant section from Philips on depression? I tried to find this source locally but failed, the nearest copy appears to be about 75 km from here, and it is not available in any online form that I could find. None of the sources I did find mention this, although one apparently quotes Philips as saying "that he was murdered or helped on his way to death, either from a pre-existing illness or from physical decline and depression" If this is an accurate summation of the original, I reiterate my concern that this is simply one person's speculation based on nothing. None of what I could find were in anything that might be considered peer reviewed, and as Philips appears to have no medical background and I can't find any trace of publications of a medical or scientific nature, I am again growing concerned about undue weight being given to what appears to be an idle claim. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

His "mental condition...is likely to have been very poor. It is easy to believe that Edward was deeply depressed...this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Phillips is of the two major modern biographers of Edward, and the Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at Dublin, with the book in question published by the Yale University Press, so I would personally consider it a reliable source for the statement in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (NB: Yale has an internal and external academic review process for manuscripts for publication). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So this is simply Phillips' speculation. It doesn't even try to hide this, it is clearly expressed as such - "is likely", "easy to believe", "this might have been". Lots of other things might have been too, given the same inputs. "It is easy to believe" he suffered from exposure and "this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Both of those claims have exactly the same amount of factual data to back them up - none whatsoever. If you wish to include Philips statement in the article, fine, but it needs to be clearly stated that "Philips speculates...". The article spends the right amount of time saying that other stories about the cause of death are speculation, and I see reason to do the same here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with you on this one. It is an opinion of a leading historian, and the article text makes clear that this is not a straightforward fact but a "maybe": "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may...". The argument that Edward could have been depressed having been overthrown by his wife and her lover, chased across Britain, having lost his best friend in a gruesome execution, then being removed as king by the nobility and church and locked in a cell in Berkeley Castle, is not exactly an extraordinary or contentious claim (if anything one might argue that it verges on the obvious!) - and Phillips notes the Brut chronicle's statements about Edward's state of mind as part of his argument. I'm not aware of any other historian that has argued against Phillips' position here. It is acceptable for professional historians to interpret evidence (although not for ourselves to do so as Wikipedians!) and for those interpretations to be used in articles, provided that our text reflects the cited source. If we disagree with a professional specialist opinion, the place to argue the case is in academia, rather than on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you outline the evidence from Brut that you refer to? Perhaps this is what I am looking for. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You'll be after Brut, section i, 252-3 as per the 1906 edition according to the footnote. Not the easiest document to interpret though, but at least it's not in Latin!:) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I found a copy at Robarts online (those aren't sections but page numbers). It's in English BTW, not latin, which is handy. So if this is the source of Phillips' suggestion, there is absolutely nothing that one might take to be any sort of evidence of any medical condition, especially when you consider the lengthy discussions of Merlin, clearly invented dialog, and other issues. If this is the source, I reiterate my original point: I strongly recommend this section be stated with something to the effect that "Philips has speculated that..." to make it clear that there is no physical evidence for this point, and that Philips himself makes no such claims. It's speculation, and as such, should be given the same disclaimers as the other bits of speculation, like red hot anal pokers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, yes, I know it's not in Latin (as per my previous commment!) As I've noted above, interpreting Brut is difficult (people do whole university courses on interpreting this sort of document), which is why we don't interpret or work with primary medieval sources on Wikipedia. You need to understand which component of the narrative came from which source (both human and documentary), the influence of medieval symbolism and mysticism, the translation of Middle English etc. - which is why we use reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. Personally, I thought that the references to Edward's state of mind and health were fairly clear in this part of the Brut text though - on. p.252, he complains to his gaolers about his mental suffering and ill-health, and goes on to make a rather depressing declaration that he is a nothing in prison, beaten down by God etc. the start of page 253, for example. I think we may may need to agree to disagree though; I think that the wiki text summarises Phillips' argument accurately, and isn't contentious with other historians - you clearly don't. If you disagree with Phillips' use of chronicler sources per se though, then that's probably something you need to raise off-wiki in academic circles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the passage does summarize Philip's opinion. What it doesn't do is state that this is his opinion. Why are you so reticent to add the two words "Philip's suggests" after the comma? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - Really a very impressive article which I thoroughly enjoyed. Happy to support once the minor issues below are addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "The King probably deliberately chose the castle as the location for Edward's birit was an important symbolic location for the native Welsh, associated with Roman imperial history, and formed the centre of the new royal administration of North Wales." - aside from the spelling error, this sentance doesn't make sense - I think there is a word missing.
  • Not really "the location for Edward's birth was an important symbolic location" still feels like it should be "the location for Edward's birth as it was an important symbolic location" instead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, with you. See if it's right now. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Alfonso is spelled differently in the lead and the main text - be consistent.
  • "but war broke out again in 1294" - when was there war with France before? I don't think its been mentioned.
  • "The earls of Pembroke and Surrey were embarrassed" - Link Surrey as he hasn't been mentioned before.
  • "and his decapitated head was sent back to Edward" - this reads like its Butler's head you're talking about. Rephrase please
  • "Edward ordered the arrest of any French in England" - any French citizens or any French people read better.
  • "When granting Gascony to Isabella, Phillip IV appeared to have been divided up his lands" - dividing?
  • "not least because of his abuse of high-status women" - in what way did he abuse them?

Comments

  • Sources:
    • Childs source - is the title really "'Welcome My Brother': Edwards II, John of Powderham and the Chronicles, 1318"? (the plural Edwards is what is sticking out at me)
    • Otherwise, the sources look fine to me. I see you're leaning heavily on Phillips, which is as it should be - it's the most recent scholarly biography. Since the ODNB entry for Edward was written by Phillips, not much use in using it.
    • I spot checked some information against Phillips - footnote 59 (pp. 111-115), footnote 81 (Phillips p. 102), footnote 122 (p. 161) and footnote 199 (pp. 374-375) - all were correct summaries of the pages but without close paraphrasing concerns. I also checked footnote 252 to Doherty pp. 74-75, which was also correctly paraphrased without being too close.
  • Childhood:
    • "but he was certainly supportive of the sport." - examples?
  • Early campaigns:
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation" - does this mean one he built or just one under his control?
  • I don't think the original text was clear; I'm presuming it would have had to be constructed on site, with with some parts pre-built off site and potentially some local timbers used for major framework etc. How far he got involved this I'm not sure. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Piers:
    • Do we have an article for the Meaux Chronicle?
  • No, but I've just created a redirect and linked. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Tensions:
    • "in a febrile atmosphere" - maybe "heated atmosphere"?
    • link for "the marshal of the royal household"?
  • Linked, although the target isn't ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ordinances:
    • Shouldn't "parliament" be "Parliament"?
  • I'd followed some other writers on this period by lower casing it; I think they prefer it to emphasis the process, rather than as a fixed institution in the sense of the later "Houses of Parliament". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "cutting out the Frescobaldi bankers"? Slangish, since I assume you mean that they stiffed the Italians...
  • Death:
    • "he led a powerful faction in England" - I assume we mean Lancaster here? It's a bit ... twisty though.
    • I really do not agree with the link to "show trial" in "At a show trial Gaveston was declared ..." The concept of a show trial is very definitely a modern one, very much tied to modern propaganda. Phillips just says "A semblence of a trial may even have been held before two royal justices..." which seems to make it unclear whether or not a trial was even held. I don't have Chaplais, but my copy of The Three Edwards by Prestwich (first edition), does have a trial taking place, but he doesn't appear to consider it a show trial either. Prestwich does say the grounds for the trial were questionable. Prestwich in Plantagenet England says "It seems that a trial of sorts was held, and that Gaveston was sentenced to death on the basis of the Ordinances. His death, however, had little of the character of a judicial execution and more of a public lynching." Even Doherty, much more of a sensationalist writer, just says that Gaveston "was put on trial before hastily assembled royal justices and condemned to death as a traitor."
  • Tensions:
    • Shouldn't it be "Parliament" in "thanks to parliament" (And elsewhere in the article)
  • Despenser War:
    • "the recently elevated Hugh Audley and Roger Damory." Wasn't one reason these two opposed the Despensers was that they thought Hugh the younger had gotten more of hte Clare lands than he deserved?
  • War with France:
    • NOt fond of the easter egg link in "Duchy of Gascony flared into open war in 1324" .. can we reword to actually use the name?
    • "In 1323, he insisted that Edward come to Paris to give homage for Gascony, and insisted.." repetition
    • Why the sudden name here: "sending instead John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey." we've been discussing him previously, right? Link/etc should go with first mention.
  • Abdication:
    • "sentenced to be drawn, disembowelled, castrated and quartered" link?
  • I may be misremembering, but I think it was linked to hung drawn and quartered at one point, and another editor disagreed and removed it, on the basis that the article wasn't on that specific topic; I don't think I could find a better one though. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Burial:
    • "existing pilgrim attraction" - I think "existing pilgrimage attraction" would be slightly less jarring.
    • "The tomb was opened by officials in 1855, uncovering a wooden coffin, still in good condition, and a sealed lead coffin inside it." Did they not open the lead coffin?
    • "cost of over £100,000" - conversion?
  • Kingship:
    • Need a cite directly on "was lazy and incompetent, liable to outbursts of temper over unimportant issues, yet indecisive when it came to major issues"
    • Need a cite directly on "was not so much an incompetent king as a reluctant one"
  • Are you sure? There are citations for both at the end of each sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Historiography:
    • "Views on Edward's sexuality have continued to develop over the years." Develop how though?
  • Note 9 "Edward's chancery" ... link chancery?
  • Note 14: I had to laugh at "While agreeing that there is no documentary evidence available, Ian Mortimer takes a more radical perspective..." isn't that a pocket description of Mortimer - radical perspective?
  • Note 22: "see David Carpenter's review, and Roy Haines's analysis" ... can we have a bit more of the actual location in the note, rather than the citations?
  • Note 25: Need a direct citation on "a decadent extravagance, fitting the familiar stereotype of the king" and "conventional, and perhaps even rather dull"
  • As per the above - there is a citation at the end of the sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Close to supporting, but a few things need fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose—At 115kb almost certainly WP:TOOBIGNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Apologies - my mistake in including HTML (see below), please ignore Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem - and thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Actual prose count is 72K which more than ideal, but still pretty reasonable for such a well-documented individual. I did a quick read through in light of this comment and didn't see any readily available savings that could be made by splitting out sections into subpages. I would ask the delegates to disregard Norfolkbigfish's comment.
  • All of your article titles are in title case, but what about those in your cites like the DNB and Carpenter?
  • I don't see any other issues with cite and bibliography formatting.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The MOS is firm in terms of how book titles should be capitalised, but I think the preferred convention on web-titles is to leave them unaltered from the original online publication, except for moving to lower-caps if they are all capitalised. Happy to be corrected though (in which case I'll alter accordingly!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The MOS actually talks only about "composition" titles, not just book titles, although some people have argued that it only applies to books. To my mind a composition means a book or article, regardless of publishing format or mode, but read it for yourself: MOS:CT--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Uncle David[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an experimental independent film produced in Britain in 2010. Engaging with LGBT themes, it stars the performance artist David Hoyle and includes a soundtrack featuring Boy George. A GA since May 2013, it has gone through FAC three times, each time failing due to a lack of interest, perhaps as a result of its niche and controversial subject matter. Fourth time lucky ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm still satisfied with this article, 4 nominations in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • See 3rd nomination, agree with all points, fair-use OK.
  • 2 additional images since last nomination, CC or released into PD with sufficient info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. It's well-written and well-presented. It flows nicely and seems comprehensive. It's absolutely not a movie I would ever see, and I'm surprised there is so much about it. Good work. Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, this article seems well-written and well-organised, and I found few things to quibble about. The article is far from my usual type but I suppose I should broaden my mind!

  • What age is Ryder supposed to be in the film?
    • It's not made at all clear; that's part of the ambiguity of the film. He's an adult actor who is behaving like a child. It leaves things enigmatic and disturbing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of a day, he filmed three shorts starring Hoyle and Reich," - Are you sure this is correct? Or should it be Ryder rather than Reich?
    • Well spotted; it has been corrected to Ryder. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ... "which had eight people inside of it during filming;" - "inside of it" is offensive to my ear.
    • Do you think "inside it" would be an improvement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree - changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the section "Release", the last third of the paragraph is rather off-topic it seems to me.
    • I understand your viewpoint although I am a little loathe to see it removed altogether because I fear that it would erode the otherwise comprehensive nature of the article. I'd be happy to listen to any other users' views on this particular issue, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "... a cast commentary track voiced by Hoyle, Ryder, Reich and Nicholls." - Nicholls has not been mentioned before. Who is he? On further investigation I find he is one of the directors but his name has been mis-spelled in this sentence.
    • The extraneous "l" has been removed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's all I can find for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It was suggested at the previous FAC that there was excessive use of "the latter" in the article and I see there are still three instances of its use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just seen this additional question but am unable to find any instances of "the latter" within the article. A quick look at the revision history of the page reveals that User:Mike Christie was kind enough to make the alteration. Thank you Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I am now happy with the article and the improvements made since this review started, and support the candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to bury the corpse of his nephew in the sand, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea": if it's buried, how can it be swept out to sea?
    • In the film, the body is placed in a shallow grave, and then covered in sand, however the outgoing tide is nevertheless powerful enough to take the body away. To hopefully avoid this problem in future, I've changed the text in the article to "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to place his nephew's body in a shallow grave, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you add at least approximate dates to some of the key events in the last two paragraphs of the producton background section?
    • I have added one date ("circa 2008") and will look into the possibility of adding more. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      That's useful, but I suspect a little copyediting is now needed; you have "agreed to the request several years later" but it appears the delay was just c. 2008 to 2009. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a tricky one. I suspect that the chronology as articulated by Ryder ("about 3 years ago", "After a couple of years") simply isn't accurate. The interview was posted online in November 2011, although not necessarily conducted at that time. However, assuming that it was conducted at that time, then Ryder and Hoyle would have first met circa 2008. If "a couple of years" then passed that would take us to 2010, yet that cannot be correct given that we know that Uncle David was filmed over five days in October 2009. So I think it best if I remove "circa 2008" altogether, as i really don't think that we can use that reliably. I will do some more investigating and see what I come up with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Looking at the interview conducted with Reich, the director, which was posted online in May 2011, we are given a few further clues. Here he states that the RVT Christmas show took place "2 years ago", by which I presume that he means Christmas 2009. However, if this show was the "genesis of the film" as he states, then Christmas 2009 would make no sense, because the film itself would already have been filmed in October 2009. In that scenario, the original Christmas show would have taken place in 2008. What I think we have here is an interview that was conducted several months before it was posted online; i.e. the interview was conducted with Reich when the film was first released (in 2010) but only posted online when the DVD of it was released (2011). Do you think that I should go ahead and state that the Christmas show took part in 2008 within the article, or would that be stretching our use of reliable sources ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
        I agree it doesn't look like you can be definite enough to put this in the main text. It's up to you, but one option would be to add a footnote that said something like "the dates for the events leading up to the film are unclear", and give the information you have. I asked for dates because it does seem a bit vague without them, but if the sources aren't helpful there's not much more you can do. My support isn't dependent on this; I'm going to go ahead and support regardless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes Sex-Gore-Mutants a reliable source?
    • This is a question that was posed during the articles' third FAC. There, User:Hamiltonstone stated that "I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound." I would echo their comments again this time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      That's helpful -- I think I should probably do some digging myself and try to come up with an opinion; I'll post back here if I find anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      I can't find out enough to be sure. Once you've fixed the only remaining issue -- the issue with the dates above -- I'll support with the caveat that I would like to see the source review confirm that that site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done a copyediting pass; please revert if I made a mess of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. My only caveat to the coordinators is that I am not sure about the reliability of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website, and whoever does the source review should try to evaluate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone. I thought this was travelling pretty well last time, and as noted above my one source concern was resolved. There has been some copyediting between the close of the last nom and today, and I hope that has improved the prose (though i wasn't concerned about it myself, i know Graham Colm was). I'm happy with this piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This article covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps and drew the ire of the Comintern. It recently passed Milhist A-Class review and I consider it is very close to or meets the FA criteria. Suggestions for improvements will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (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) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "the book did not accept the mythology": I don't know what this is referring to. The same phrase is used in both the lead and the body.
  • "In August 1942, ... Tito's Yugoslav Partisans had captured a group of eight Germans": if they were captured in August 1942 I would cut "had"; if they were captured before August and the date isn't known I'd make it "By August 1942".
  • "After their capture, Ott stated that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after this had been arranged he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb": it's not immediately clear what "this had been arranged" refers to. I think it means something like "after he had been taken to Partisan headquarters", but I initially thought it meant "after he delivered his message", before realizing that the last part of the sentence must be the message. How about: "tt told his captors that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after he had been taken there he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb"?
  • "Tito was willing to exchange the eight Germans": if Otto was part of the group, and the group was eight Germans, weren't there only seven left to be exchanged once Ott was sent as messenger back to the Germans?
  • Suggest linking "SA" to Sturmabteilung.
  • "the Abwehr were considering more than prisoner exchanges": unless I'm missing it, you don't say what more they might have been considering.
  • Velebit's role is not given when he is first mentioned; you do this for nearly all the other significant figures and I think it would be good to do it here too.
  • In the list of points made by the Partisans, I think it needs to be "stated that they considered the Chetniks their main enemies", to be in agreement with the structure of the other points.
  • "the short period of respite had in fact been a trap": I don't follow -- what made it a trap? A trap implies that the Partisans did something they would not have otherwise done that put them in a weaker position, but I don't see anything like that described.
  • "These negotiations resulted in the exchange of between 600 to 800 Partisans in total": shouldn't this also mention the approximate number of German prisoners exchanged?
  • "The negotiations first came to light in 1949": I'm not clear what "came to light" means. The British knew about the contacts at the time, so does this mean the first time the information was declassified or leaked in some way? Or does it just mean that 1949 was the first time attention was focused on the negotiations, because of the book?
  • "Martovski pregovori (The March negotiations)": not sure of the MoS rules here, but shouldn't it be "Negotiations", even though it's just a translated title? You use title case for the other translated titles.
  • Quite a few books are listed at the end of the article. A "Further reading" or "Primary sources" section might be worth it.
  • It looks like you haven't consulted some of the books listed; the ones you don't list as sources seem to be either older (Clissold) or not in English. Is there any reason to think you might be missing key material not covered in the other sources?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the last point. I have some Serbo-Croat skills and have read several of the books in that language that are accessible. Some of the books are obviously quite old and have effectively been superseded by later ones, and some a a little suspect due to the location and time they were published, but I have no reason to believe I've missed any key material. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    I've struck the points I can see are addressed; unless I'm missing something I think the others haven't been fixed. For the "trap" question, I saw the comment about the Partisans being encircled in Case Black, but I still don't understand why the negotiations could be regarded as a trap. If the Germans were using negotiations as a trap, that would imply that if it hadn't been for the negotiations they wouldn't have been able to encircle the Partisans in Case Black. If they could do that without Case Black, it could be called a blind, or a front, but not a trap, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry Mike, my mistake. As far as Ott was concerned, he was sent to Zagreb "on parole" to facilitate the negotiations, but officially he was still a prisoner of the Partisans until the transfer was completed. The total number of Germans (and Italians and Croatian Home Guard troops) exchanged after the March negotiations is not recorded in any of the sources I've read. I'm going to go back over the sources on the "trap" issue and review the logic of it, as you suggest. I'll ping you when I'm done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    The number of Germans (etc.) exchanged isn't critical; if you have it, I'd say mention it, but if it's not in the sources it's not a problem. I would just clarify to the reader that Ott was still "on parole" as you put it; that will clear up the eight vs. seven issue. Once that and the "trap" issue are cleared up I expect to support; this is a very solid article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    G'day @Mike Christie: I have added a link and material regarding Ott's "parole". I have also reviewed the sources on the negotiations, and two things are apparent. Firstly, that the "trap" idea is limited to Pavlowitch, and secondly, he does not explain its basis, making it very hard to sustain his line of argument. I have therefore removed it, as a perspective too WP:FRINGEY for a FA. I hope that clears it up. Thank you for your review, you have been very thorough, especially with the theoretical aspects, and while my source review indicates I have got the balance right in every respect but this, the "trap" idea really did not have the legs it appeared to have when I included it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks; I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

  • Prose is very good IMO -- engaging but neutral in tone -- so I didn't end up copyediting anything.
  • Structure is straightforward and the level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review above, and add a source review below.
  • No dab or dup links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review

  • No issues for me re. reliability of sources.
  • Formatting looks correct and consistent; only minor query is that you link locations in the References section but not in Further Reading. Not really fussed whether the locations are linked or not, but perhaps should be consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Ian. I've rm the loc links for consistency. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Les Holden[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Following on from Elwyn Roy King, Roy Phillipps and Garnet Malley, I present another Australian fighter ace of World War I to help commemorate the centenary of that conflict. Okay, you've probably never heard of Les except by association (his uncle co-founded car manufacturer Holden), but he certainly led an interesting life. King and Phillipps may have been the more successful aces, but Holden had the most eventful post-war career in civil aviation. Like them, he died too early, in this case on a routine passenger flight after having survived numerous brushes with death during the war, not to mention the wilds of New Guinea in the earliest days of its air transport industry. Thanks to everyone who stopped by the recent MilHist A-Class Review and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments Nice work as always Ian. I have the following comments:

  • "after a brace of incidents" - "brace" sounds a bit odd in the lead. Could it be replaced with "pair" or "series" or similar?
    • It isn't a particularly common word these days I grant you -- altered!
  • "was posted to the 4th Light Horse Brigade as a private" - while this is what's in the source, you might want to double check it: I think that the light horse used cavalry ranks, so he was probably a trooper upon joining the unit (I could well be mistaken though!)
    • I daresay you're right but I double-checked his service record and the one reference to his initial rank I could spot said private rather than trooper...
      • Fair enough. I had a look at his file on the NAA website as well, and couldn't see anything either (it's a very badly kept file!...). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Holden claimed his first aerial victory while No. 2 Squadron was still flying DH.5s, before it began converting to Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5s in December 1917" - do the sources give a date for when he claimed this victory?
    • 'Fraid not, just that it was in a DH.5. You did highlight for me however that I should've had additional sources in there...
  • "Formed at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria, it transferred to the newly opened RAAF Richmond, New South Wales, on 30 June" - given that Holden presumably wouldn't have travelled down to Melbourne to fly with this squadron in the week or so between his enlistment and its move, I'd suggest trimming this to just say that the squadron was located at Richmond from 30 June. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually it looks like he did just that! Adjusted accordingly... Tks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks Karen! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Forrest Highway[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For my fourth FAC, I bring you Forrest Highway, which connects Perth (via Kwinana Freeway) to Bunbury, Western Australia. It is one of the state's newest highways, opened in September 2009, but its history dates back to the settlement of Australind in the 1840s. Happing reading, and I look forward to your comments. - Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - WP:WA and WP:AURD projects notified [12][13] - Evad37 [talk] 11:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I also reviewed, and did an image review. --Rschen7754 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment in the section Forrest_Highway#Forrest_Highway_after_opening the second paragraph refers to the opening of service facilities by the end of 2014, as it happens to now be 2015 that reads as dated. Gnangarra 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I can not find any more recent sources that discuss the proposed service centres. I could trim off that last sentence if it would make it seem less dated. - Evad37 [talk] 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Gnangarra: I have a sources that explains the delay, and updated the article - Evad37 [talk] 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    thanks caught this as I was heading out the door to take some photos of the area to address the issue consider me a support now Gnangarra 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article meets the FA criteria and it is well-written. --Carioca (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prose review needed for Overuse of however and overuse of subsequently (often redundant, and redundant in this article). Also, when there is nothing in the See also section, it can be eliminated and the Portal links can be placed in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced and copyedited usage of however, removed the three instances of subsequently, and removed the See also section - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, one more. Per MOS:SURNAME and MOS:HONORIFIC, why are there several instances of Mr. in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed most of them, but I don't have a first name or even initial for Mrs Lyttleton - Evad37 [talk] 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (have been checked during ACR, see above)

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Malvern Hill, fought July 1, 1862, between General George McClellan's Army of the Potomac and General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The battle ended in a Confederate defeat and effectively ended McClellan's campaign on the Virginian Peninsula. This is my first FA article but I dare not ask you to go easy on me (neither will you ;)). FAs are the best of the best. For the record though, I would like to get it to FA before July 1 so it can be featured on the Main Page. It may be jumping the gun but it is a solid goal :) Thank you, ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: You should probably mention that the battle is part of the American Civil War in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'll be happy to help with copyediting after we get a support or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Striking, there's more to do here than I have time for. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you Dank. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment pending support I'll support this, after it gets some copy -editing. You've got a lot of dupe links, too. Let me know when Dank does his copy edit, and I'll give it another go-over for copy/prose. your source list doesn't include all in your footnotes (such as Sweetman or Rollyson). auntieruth (talk)

@Auntieruth55: Mike Christie has copyedited recently, did you want to take another look at the article now? @Dank: Just FYI... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ian, there's more to do here than I have time for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review: fine

  • did not do spot checks
  • sources cited include many of the principle works on the battle/campaign.
  • further reading section is a nice touch, and includes several important and readable works on the campaign. auntieruth (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Auntieruth55. I removed the duplinks I found with Ucucha's script (I though I'd got them all but a whole bunch of them popped up when I used the script in the edit window.) Hey Dank, do you think this would be enough to endorse a copyedit Smile.png? Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not yet. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Weak support. I have three more minor points that can be easily fixed.

  • In the geography section, some instances of "creek" are capitalized in the names and some are not -- can you just confirm that this is consistent with the sources?
  • "Davis and Lee eventually decided that large-scale pursuit of McClellan's army was careless": "careless" is surely not the right word; and the tense seems wrong too: do you mean something like "would be too risky"?
  • "Our success has not as great or complete as we should have desired": I didn't fix this because it's a direct quote, but I assume this is missing "been".

Other than these three points I think this article is now FA-quality, with a couple of caveats. First, I see that it has not had a A-class review from the Military History Wikiproject. Of course that's not a prerequisite, but in the absence of an A-class review I'd like to hear from someone with ACW expertise that this article does fairly reflect the scholarship on the battle; I'm just a layman on the topic and can't pretend to have reviewed this for comprehensiveness or balance. Second, I think the article would benefit from at least one more map. I think the basic topography of the area would be much easier to understand with a good map, and there are geographic features in the larger area that I gather are beyond the borders of the one map that we do have -- e.g. the James River. The current map is very good for its age, but clarity is as important as authenticity and as a reader I couldn't follow the battle as well as I would have liked to. I'd also like to be able to follow some of the action on a map (perhaps a different one): Magruder's misdirected march, and Huger's delays, are still vague to me because I couldn't place them in relation to the battlefield as well as I would like; and of course if the sources exist then the action on the battlefield itself could be illustrated too -- exactly where was Armistead's "successful" charge, for example?

I've indicated weak support above because of these two points, but really the addition of one or more modern maps is the main thing that would lead me to strike "weak" from my support. The comment about MilHist just reflects that fact that I can't honestly support on 1b and 1c of the FA criteria. The structure of the article seems just right to me, and the narrative is straightforward and clear. A very good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

  • For the sake of note: I also pinged Parsecboy (the GA reviewer) who said he would re-review and drop a note here. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm satisfied overall. This article is much improved, and I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Sourcing comments

  • Using fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Also, {{refbegin}} has that parameter, which should be used over adding {{div col}}
  • Be consistent in whether books include location; if they do it should be more specific than "United States"
  • Some bibliographic details are repeated between Citations and Sources, while other sources are represented by short cites in Citations and full details only in Sources
  • Can you verify the Cullen title?
  • Can you verify the Longstreet listing? It's missing date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • I'm not seeing any of that paragraph in FN88, at least not on the listed page
  • Some of the content from FN96 is too close to the source - compare for example "McClellan, in contrast to Lee, knew exactly where the blame lay. It was the "heartless villains" in Washington that authored his defeat" with "McClellan knew precisely where to lay the blame. The authors of his defeat...were the "heartless villains" in Washington", or "McClellan found solace in his opinion that everything that happened to him on the Peninsula was the divine will of God" with "The general found solace in his conviction that everything that had happened to him on the Peninsula was God's will".
    • Still some problems here - "paramount enemy" is direct from the source, though the source applies it to McClellan rather than Stanton.
  • "Lieutenant William Folwell, wondered why "they deify a General whose greatest feat was a masterly retreat."[96]" - quote in the source says "whose greatest feat has been a masterly retreat" (my emphasis), please correct
  • "Longstreet did not share Hill's objections, laughing off his caution and saying, "Don't get so scared, now that we've got him [General McClellan] whipped."" - this quote is actually on p314 of that source, not 309 or 310
  • "The Confederate artillery fire had some effect" is a direct quote from the source
  • "The cries of the wounded tore through the night air" is a direct quote from the source
  • "uncomplaining silence from the hero" - should be "of the hero"
  • The long Averell quote is missing a few words
  • "In obedience to your orders, twice responded" - source says "twice repeated"
  • "A gun burst, of course, would cause terrible damage to the crew operating it. It takes extreme courage to operate guns in this way" is very close to "It took courage to fire in this way, for a bursting gun would do terrible damage to its crew". Please check for other instances of too-close paraphrasing
  • "I do not think McClellan was up to the mark" - source says "I do not think McClellan has come up to the mark". Please check for other errors in direct quotes

Oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I've gone over the entire article and addressed the points you've raised. I've reworded what needs rewording, check the citations, added quotes to what needs it, etc. It's rather incredible how easy it is to close-paraphrase. My fault entirely. I think another spotcheck is in order. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits so far, but there are still issues here:

  • "have been established to rake the enemy's line" - should be "enemies' line"
  • "The regiments pushed the skirmishers back easily enough, but in doing so, walked into the intense fire" is quite close to "They chased the skirmishers back easily enough, but in doing so advanced into a withering fire"
  • "the Federals were pulling back across Malvern Hill (this was actually Edwin Sumner's troops moving because of Confederate shelling); and Union artillery fire slackening on his front" is quite close to "Yankee troops pulling back across Malvern Hill (this was Sumner's men taking cover from the Confederate shells) and the enemy's artillery fire slackening on his front"
  • "kin searched among the wounded for their loved ones and tried to reclaim the bodies of the dead" is quite close to "families searched for the wounded and tried to reclaim the bodies of the dead"

Generally speaking, verifiability is better than on last check, but I'm still quite concerned about the paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for your response. Lesson learned. I'll do a paragraph-by-paragraph sweep tomorrow. Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Taiko[edit]

Nominator(s) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the set of Japanese percussion instruments called taiko. They have an ill-defined history in terms of their exact origins in addition to a mythological origin story. The usage of the instrument changed greatly through Japan's history, particularly just after WWII with the work of percussionist Daihachi Oguchi, who created a performance style involving several types of taiko and multiple players. This style is now very much the norm in taiko performance as popularized by groups such as Kodo. Construction of the drums and components of taiko performance are explored in-depth. The article also goes into detail about taiko outside of Japan (such as in Brazil) in addition to its role in social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.

Curly Turkey, GermanJoe and others left very helpful feedback in the previous FAC discussion, which was closed as some matters required more thorough investigation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I JethroBT has addressed all the issues I had in the last FAC and on the talk page, so I support this nom (though, as the nominator knows, if I had my 'druthers I'd have most of the kanji kicked out of the body). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I've just kicked out some more what with the glossary there and all. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg: since Japan does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works, you should explicitly indicate that the work itself is now PD. The tag you've currently got indicates that the artwork is fair-use, which I don't think is what you mean - rather it's the photo that is non-free. This is further confused by "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" - if that is true, why is this fair use at all?\
    Done, with some issues. The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain Is that text automatically generated? I don't remember writing that myself. The photograph is definitely not under a free license, as you said, and is owned by the Tokyo National Museum. I'll be removing this line. I have indicated that the work itself is PD in both Japan and the U.S., but with the non-free tag, it's produced incompatibilities that I've been unable to resolve. Does it just need to be left this way? I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    This is one possible solution, or you could explore alternative tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uzume.jpg: if this photo was taken in Japan, again the licensing status of the artwork itself should be indicated
    Checking... Information on the artwork itself is not immediately available and requires a little digging... I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've been unable to find any information on the statue itself in terms of its creator or the year it was built, so I think it's best to remove the photo for now. I've been unable to find a suitable, free replacement image that has the necessary information. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I suggest you examine the consistency of reference formatting before a source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Can you be more specific about the consistency of the referencing format? Should things like websites and news articles also use the sfn format, even if they are just cited once rather than multiple times across multiple pages? I don't have a good idea of what's expected here; my thinking was that books would be more suitable for sfn, but using sfn for web content and news would not serve any useful purpose beyond the normal ref tags. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that similar sources should look similar. Under that rule, using sfn for books and another option for websites/news articles is fine. Problems occur when books and websites are not consistent with other books and websites. For example, some books include locations and others do not, or sometimes you include publisher for newspapers and other times not. There are also things that, while consistent, are errors: for example, Tokyo National Museum is a publisher not a work, and so should not be italicized.
I see, that makes sense. I'll tidy these up today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: As I'm going through these, one thing I will note is that Template:Cite news recommends the following for the publisher line: Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher) This is the case for many news publications here, such as the Japan Times or NYT, so it makes sense that there is some inconsistency in this regard. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done. I've standardized a number of matters such as publisher info on books, full page numbers for journal articles, and designating magazines vs. journals in addition to removing the via=JSTOR parameter in citations given that I provided the identification number using jstor=. I've added these in for sources that I obtained using JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: In light of changes over the past month, could you undertake a source review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - only a few minor points remaining:

  • "[Den] was also known for developing a communal living and training facility for Ondekoza on Sado Island in Japan, and had a reputation for its intensity and broad education programs in folklore and music." - Is "Den" the first or last name? Use last name (or the Japanese equivalent) throughout.
    Done. "Den Tagayasu" is actually a name the performer created for himself, and it appears that Den is the last name after some checking. Reliable sources like Taiko Boom refer to him as "Den," ([14]) so I'll adjust references to him as "Den" accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He is the recipient of awards recognizing the cultural value of his work." - The sentence is a bit short, "awards" could use some qualifier (worldwide? which kind of awards? ...). Just a brief addition needed to fill the sentence.
    Done. It seemed easier just to provide what the awards were, specifically, so I did. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounding nitpicky, but fair-use rationale of File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg needs the "n.a." parameters filled (on FA-level):
  • "Commercial opportunities": check other non-free art images for example phrases.
  • "not replaceable": you should indicate, why this specific image is not replaceable with another image for the same encyclopedic purpose.
Done. @GermanJoe: All of your above comments have been addressed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Other images have been reviewed already, no need for duplication.
  • I'll leave a full source review to the experts (cleaned up a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support (confident, that a final source review will show only minor issues, quickly fixed) The article covers a broad topic with a lot of necessary detail, but stays accessible throughout with a clear and logical structure. Unavoidable Japanese and music terminology is put into context and supported with additional Wiki-links. Sources appear to be reliable (on a quick glance), content is thoroughly referenced. Very nice article on a difficult topic. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Some great work here. The article is well-organized and easy to read, which is hard to do for a topic readers will know little about; and the prose is in good shape. I can't speak to comprehensiveness but all the topics I would expect to see are covered -- construction, performance, types, cultural history, usage both inside and outside Japan. This is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

(spotchecks not done)

  • Dead links
    • @Nikkimaria: Fixed one of these, and removed the other as it was a company's website no longer needed to source the information. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Source for Hornbostel–Sachs classification? The glossary?
    • There actually is no source after looking around for one; I've provided this based on the Hornbostel–Sachs descriptions and the descriptions of the drums that are played, but this is probably synthesis. I think because this is such a wide range of drums that are categorically different, it might be better to get rid of it until a source classifying them can be found. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Page numbers for FN31?
    • I've added these pages to the bibliographic section. The book is not accessible to me in my area, but the book is able to previewed on Google Book. Specific page numbers, however, are not provided, and some sections of the chapter are skipped. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Per your reasoning above, why include publisher in FN51?
  • Museums are publishers not works - they shouldn't be italicized. Same with FN109, 197, 198, check for others
    • Thanks-- I've fixed these ones. With regard to 197 and 198 (now 193 & 194 since refs have changed), these use Template:Citeweb, and the name of the website is redundant with the publisher in these cases, so I've elected to just put these publishers in the website field. I can change this to something else if you think it'd be clearer. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I would actually recommend putting them all in the publisher field instead, and omitting website name unless it's different. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you double-check details for FN135? The formatting is incorrect but I think the title might be as well
    • It's not only incorrect, but it's not citing the claim correctly, so I've replaced it with a citation to an existing source in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Compare formatting of FN135 vs 142
    • Right, 142 would have been the correct way to format it. 135 has been replaced my comments in the above point. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay. 142 (now 139) uses a different volume formatting from the other journals - this should be reconciled. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why include fellowship date in FN190 but not FN193?
    • Not done purposefully, just an oversight. Added the year the latter. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • It's definitely not; I thought this article may have been published elsewhere, but it has not been. I've now replaced this with a suitable source. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate university presses
  • Since XLibris is a self-publishing company, what makes Nakamoto a high-quality reliable source? Same with Lulu and Petersen
    • I wasn't aware of this, thanks. Is there an a resource editors use to check whether a company is self-publishing? I've replaced these Nakmoto and Petersen citations using with appropriate RS. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:LSP, though it's incomplete and a bit out of date now. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You've got an error message on Terada 2001
  • How does Tusler meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Same with Vogel
    • First, both of these are doctoral dissertations. For Tusler, a Ph.D, and for Vogel, a D.M.A.. Tusler's thesis has been cited well in the applicable literature, such as in Bender's Taiko Boom ([15]), an important RS for this Wikipedia article, Post's Ethnomusicology ([16]), Lee's Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife ([17]), and has been cited independently by two other academic publications. Vogel's thesis, however, is not well-represented in the literature, and I have therefore replaced or dropped its citations from the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay. Doctoral dissertations are a relatively new addition to SCHOLARSHIP, but your explanation is good. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes

  • Jethro, my apologies for not picking it up till now but I gather this would be your first FA if promoted? If so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we generally ask all of the newer nominators to jump through. Perhaps Nikki or one of the other reviewers above could look at that... :-)
    • Correct, this would be my first FA, and a spot check is certainly a reasonable practice. I'll ping Curly Turkey, GermanJoe, and Mike Christie as well if they are able to do this sooner. I'd recommend that if editors have access to Bender's Taiko Boom through Google Books or otherwise, to spot-check the article against it because it is one of more heavily used sources in this article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a fair few duplicate links in the article, which you can highlight by installing this script. Some of the dups may be justified by the length of the article and the space between the links, but pls review and lose what seems reasonable.

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • "uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height" - FN 11 refers to the drum itself as a tube, played with a stick. Does FN10 say otherwise?
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks, the tube detail was a misread on my part. Refs in FN10 refers to it as "a barrel drum beaten by a stick" and "a drum covered in skins on both sides and hung from his shoulder at hip height," so there is nothing about a tube being used to play the drum. I've fixed this in the body and image caption. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "They are also characterized by a high amount of tension on the drums heads, with a correspondingly high pitch relative to body size.[60]" - not seeing this in that source (plus the grammar error should be fixed)
    • I'm not sure what happened here, and I can't find a source to support the claim as it is phrased. I've subsequently replaced it with a different claim related to tensioning systems for taiko drums generally. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The chū-daiko is a medium-sized nagadō-daiko ranging from 1.8 to 2.6 shaku (55 to 79 cm; 21 to 31 in),[67]" - not seeing this in that source, but I think perhaps you meant to cite this page? Even if so, your numbers are incorrect. Check that and other instances of FN67
    • Fixed these numbers, the source, and have replaced the other instances of FN67, which were also incorrect. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "of which the earliest date from 558 CE" - source says 588
  • "standing up.[2]" - not seeing this in that source
    • This applies to the dadaiko in the Blades source; I've fixed this in the section. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "They are decoratively painted with flames" - source mentions a "decorative object" but not flames.
    • I had to clarify this a bit; it's not the drum that is painted / decorated, but the apparatus that contains it. The Blades (1992) source does describe the flames on p. 125. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Stopping there - there's a bit more checking required here before this can pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Of Human Feelings[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by saxophonist Ornette Coleman. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus, after which I resolved the concerns in the oppose at that FAC by BananaLanguage with checks of print sources and text. Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Per MOS:QUOTE, linking should be avoided inside quotes. Either drop the links or paraphrase the quotes to keep them.
The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes", so does it suggest it's not always possible? I'd think cases where a unique phrase or term which cant be paraphrased is the exception, like "collective consciousness" or "key (music)|key", unless I should drop the quotation marks altogether since these are unique enough phrases? Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics: Does harmolodics require electric instruments? The wording seems to imply so
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • all the musicians are able to play individual melodies in any key, and all the while sound coherent as a group: is this the theory, or an aspect of the theory?
It's the theory --> "According to his theory..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He taught his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach: is this harmolodics, or has the subject changed?\
Harmolodics; I changed it to "...this new improvisation..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. Nonetheless, Coleman still wanted to set up his own record company with the same name: I don't understand---the rejection of the recording led to the failure of Coleman's recording company, but he wanted to revive it?
I don't see how that's suggested here, that the rejection of the recording led to its failure. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what's being said here. He "still wanted to set up his own record company", but the failed session had been a project of a record compnay he already had? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I replaced "Nonetheless" with "In addition to this company, he also wanted to...". Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The session was originally titled Fashion Faces : do sessions have titles, or was this the working title of the album?
I've read sources that say both--Palmer's 1982 NY Times review says the working title--while the source cited here says the session. I deferred to the latter because it's a bio on Coleman by a jazz writer. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Unlike most albums at the time, it was recorded with a Sony PCM-1600 two-track digital recorder.: I'm assuming this is trying to say either (or both) (a) that the album was a two-track recording rather than whatever ridiculous number of tracks they were up to by 1979 (b) it was digital. The way it's worded, the emphasis is on the Sony as opposed to other brands.
The source suggests neither--just that it was a PCM-1600, which it called "then-rare". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the source---I was talking about the wording, which tells us that, unlike most of the industry, Coleman et al used a Sony. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I rephrased it to say this recording item was rare at the time. Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • a type of music that originated in 1970: has the advent of jazz-funk been pinpoited so precisely?
Source says "about 1970". I rephrased it as "originated around 1970". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to make each pair of guitarist and drummer: it should probably be made more explicit before this point that there were two simultaneous drummers.
It is in the lead, "background", and in "recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In passing, yes, it's mentioned there were two people who were drummers. It doesn't say they played simultaneously, which I think will surprise most readers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Added "simultaneously" to where they're mentioned in "Recording", Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mandel felt that the passages were neither very soft or loud, because the album was mixed with a middle-frequency range and compressed dynamics: shouldn't this be in the "Recording" section rather than "Compostion"?
It would seem so, but it's a critic's interpretation or opinion on how it was recorded and his impression on how a musical passage in a song here sounds. I could move it there, however, if you still feel it's more appropriate in "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether it goes earlier or later, I don't think "Composition" is the appropriate place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved it to "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge: is there something unusual about a piece of music having a bridge?
The source said it's a "blues with a bridge". I think the point of highlighting this in the source was how simple the composition was, but it functions better in the sentence here on different songs' different compositions/features. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we assume the reader is well familiar with the context Coleman was working in, which is not a good assumption to make at Wikipedia, which aims at a general audience. We can't assume a reader will know these things, though, and will likely read it as I did: "A blues track that features a bridge". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure a general audience would know what a bridge is. At least that's the impression I've gotten when trying to talk about music with friends that are just casually interested in it lol. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to explicate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The source doesn't really do that. Would it be best to just remove it altogether? Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think so—otherwise it just leaves heads scratching as to why it was even mentioned. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • cancelled both deals upon Mwanga's return from Japan: any reason why?
No :/ Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • including the electric guitar from rock: except that the electric guitar didn't originate in rock
It didn't necessarily have to; according to what's cited in Rock_music#Characteristics, it's a central element to rock music. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
English is a central element of American culture, but we don't say that English is "from the United States". Besides, electric guitar is hardly a fringe instrument in jazz. What he incorporated was guitar with a rock-like approach (distortion, etc). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think comparing that to this is apples to oranges. The source phrased this in a similar fashion anyway: "Coleman had begun to experiment with ... rock or rhythm-and-blues elements (by adding electric guitar and, for a time, a blues singer to his group)." Also, a general audience associates the electric guitar with rock music more so than with any other genre, doesn't it? Palmer, a professional critic, seems to make this association too. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, then Palmer's being sloppy in expressing himself, isn't he? Distortion is something that definitely came from the rock approach, but the electric guitar itself is objectively not "from rock", and was far from uncommon in jazz. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't think he is--"electric guitar" is an element from rock music. It's also an element from the blues, but I think Palmer said rock because that may have been the source for Coleman in discovering electric guitar as something he'd want to include. "From" doesn't necessarily mean it originated from it--it was reappropriated and became know as the key element to rock's sound. Also, jazz purists, particular critics of this album, complained about the electric guitar being used by fusion and avant-garde players, because it's not traditionally found in bop or straight-ahead jazz, which is what a general audience usually associates with jazz. I would compromise with your revision about a "rock-like approach" to the electric guitar but none of the other sources suggested this, that Prime Time's guitarists for instance played in a rock style. I'll remove "the" and leave it as "including electric guitar from rock...", so it doesn't suggest what you're saying as much--just "electric guitar from rock", if that helps? Dan56 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Or I could just remove "from rock" altogether? Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would be disappointing, as it's obviously a rock influence. You may not intend "from" to mean "originated in", but that is certainly a valid reading and therefore makes the reading ambiguous and open to such misinterpretation. What you want to say is that he was incoroorating a rock influence and thus added electric guitar, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, Would this change from "elements" to "influences" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really: it's the "from rock" wording I'm objecting to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed "from rock". Dan56 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
... again, it's not the word "rock" I have an issue with—it's an important detail that rock was the influence. It's better than it was (implying electric gutiar came from rock), but the fact that it was a rock influence that drove Coleman to add it is an important detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ellerbee, the guitarist on this album, is said by a source to have incorporated distortion actually, although I've read a little up on it and early R&B records seem to have predated distortion in rock music ([18]), so it's whatever I guess. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This is going off on a tangent. The point is, the source tells us that it was rock that influenced Coleman to add electric guitar. I mentioned distortion merely as an example—as it was the full saturation-style distortion that was a rock innovation and standard part of rock guitar playing, and that's what you hear on the record. I'm not expecting that to be mentioned, though, as the sources don't say that. What's important to mention is what the sources do mention—that including electric guitar was a rock influence. The problem is specifically the wording "electric guitar from rock". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to "...including rock influences such as electric guitar and..." Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, I guess that's better. Okay, I'll let this one drop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • non-Western rhythms played by Moroccan and Nigerian musicians: if the musicians were Morrocans and Nigerians, that's not clear from this line

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote it as "...Nigerian musicians he enlisted." Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Some more Turkey[edit]
  • made the most sense out of Coleman's harmolodic theory: meaning, out of his recordings it was the esiest to understand? Or it got the most out of the theory?
I cannot check the source, as it is behind a paywall--I originally accessed it through snippet/search through Google News Archive, which no longer has that search function. What is unclear about the way it is written as is? Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • , which he said is "like learning a new language".: I think this could safely be dropped, as it's about the critic rather than really about the album, Coleman, or jazz.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RE: reverts:
    • felt the album's supporters in "hip rock circles" have overlooked flaws such as the dilutive digital production: yes, it says he "felt", but this could easily be read as "the dilutive digital production was something he thought was a flaw", rather than "he felt the digital production was dilutive". Is it a fact or an opinion that the digital production had a dilutive effect? It certainly wan't the intention, was it? Ditto with "one-dimensional". You can see the difference between "He felt the playing was one-dimensional" and "the playing was one-dimensional, which he thought was a flaw", right?
I assumed everything after "felt..." implies it his opinion. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not logically, no. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
ok, revised. Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to fight over a "however", but I don't think it adds anything substantive to the prose, but does unnecessarily chop it up and slow it down.
    • "saying" is a present participle? So what sense can you make of "He was saying"? You might want to read up on "ing" forms---they're not even restricle to making participles.
Ook, read up on it. I had assumed another editor's change to something similar at another article was correct when they explained it like I just did. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the biggest thing missing from the article is perhaps a paragraph giving a capsule overview of Coleman's career and music and its reception in the jazz world. The article makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's knowledge: for instance, lines like "the man once accused of standing on the throat of jazz" jump out of nowhere. How is the reader supposed to interpret this?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Curly Turkey. I've dug up a source and added a line to "Background" introducing Coleman's background in the '60s. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another nitpick: In the mid-1970s, however, he stopped recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles: does this mean he stopped playing free jazz, or that he continued to play free jazz but with electric instruments? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the source, both. "Coleman had abandoned his free jazz style ... Also, by the mid-1970s, he no longer performed with acoustic trios and quartets..." I combined it in the article, because the part about him pursuing a new direction in his music reinforces a departure from his free jazz style. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've tweaked it. I guess all my concerns have been addressed, so I'm ready to support. The "free jazz" in the infobox may be a bit confusing, though. Generally, I think the "genre" parameter should be restricted to genres that can be used to describe the album as a whole, rather than genres that happen to appear on it—otherwise it can lead to endless "genre" lists whenever anyone thinks of yeat another genre that can be thrown in. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Khanassassin[edit]

  • Support; gave it a read-through. A well-written, easy-to-read article, no issues found. Except one (maybe), but not big enough to delay a support. It probably isn't even an issue. Check it (in the Recording section): "The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. In addition to this company, he wanted to set up his own record company with the same name, so he chose his longtime friend Kunle Mwanga to be his manager." Isn't this essentially the same thing? I'm probably wrong. --Khanassassin 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Music publishing companies own or are assigned the copyright for a composition, while a record company deals with the master recording of that composition. Dan56 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Max24[edit]

  • Support; article is well-balanced in content and structure, with plenty of reliable sources. --Max24 Max24 16:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Media check - all OK (GermanJoe)[edit]

  • Non-free lead image and sound sample are within WP:NFCC - OK.
  • Other images are CC - OK.
  • All images have sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • File:Ornette_at_The_Forum_1982.jpg - Flickr-image with no original EXIF-data, but similar uploads from the same Flickr-user have valid EXIF, no obvious signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether books include locations
  • Be consistent in how volume is treated - compare Jenkins and Larkin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • FN54 returns 503 error
  • I'm concerned about the Butterworth source. The article states that "Coleman did not want to embellish", but the source actually indicates that this was not possible with the equipment used. I would also suggest quoting the "cornpone" section - it's quite a neat turn of phrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I revised it slightly. Footnote 54 is Klein right? I did not get an error. Dan56 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure readers would be familiar with "cornpone". Would "hokey" be a better substitute? Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

It's a super article, well done. I am planning to support having had a slight hack at it. It's well-written, interesting and seems well-sourced. How does the sourcing work though? There seem to be an awful lot of links in the Bibliography section which are not used. Why's that? --John (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Regarding the Bibliography, do you mean some of the references aren't used in the article? The article uses short citations (listed in "References"), which are used together with full citations (listed in "Bibliography"), which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with this referencing style but it seems I lost the ability to count. There seems to be a problem with Morrison, Buzz (June 24, 1982). Rolling Stone (New York) (372). Missing or empty . A couple more points:
Thanks for pointing that out. It seems editors introduced that missing parameter to be flagged recently (Help talk:Citation Style 1). Before, I just assumed titles weren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We cannot say "first introduced" as this is a tautology. "However" seldom adds anything, see here and here.
np. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I still don't like Of Human Feelings was acclaimed by contemporary critics as it is so vague as to be meaningless. Almost any work of art will have been "acclaimed" by some critics. What does the reference (Tinder 1982, p. 19) actually say on the subject? If we can add something more focused here that would be great. Otherwise I would favour just removing this.
Yes, but it doesn't say it was acclaimed by some critics. Readers should be introduced to the section with something summarizing the general reception. The source itself says "Listening to a tape of Coleman's much acclaimed, soon-to-be-released digital album (Of Human Feelings) I was amazed at just how prominently Jamaaladeen's bass was featured." How about something like "Of Human Feelings received considerable acclaim from critics upon its release"? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I also wonder if we need quite so many quotations. I count 21 plus a boxed quote. In some cases these are just a word or two. I think it would be better to paraphrase some of these. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll try a few, but I really don't want to tread the same ground reviewers in the previous FACs had when they nitpicked certain things to death because they felt were it was too close paraphrasing or extreme claims that there'd be even a slight modification in the meaning the source intended. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please consider withdrawing your comment that the previous FAC for this article, or any other article, was "nitpicked to death" because it undermines the work of the Wikipedians who review Good and Featured Article candidates WP:CIVIL. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interest in rehashing this; I made a remark on my impression of certain instances in previous reviews, not the totality of every reviewers' input. I paraphrased a bit @John:. How do you feel about this article so far? Dan56 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)
Shortcuts:

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

History of the Grand Canyon area[edit]

Notified: Mav, Vsmith, WikiProject United States
WP:URFA nomination

As noted on the talk page, this article is currently the oldest FA promotion listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and there are statements, using potential weasel words or quoting statistics, that should be cited. These are:

  1. "The Havasupai and Hualapai are descended from the Cerbat and still live in the immediate area. The village of Supai in the western part of the current park has been occupied for centuries."
  2. "The group was led by Hopi guides and, assuming they took the most likely route, must have reached the canyon at the South Rim, probably between today's Desert View and Moran Point."
  3. "His report of an impassable barrier forestalled further visitation to the area for two hundred years."
  4. "although there is little supporting documentation."
  5. "that group successfully ran most of the canyon"
  6. "Both the Powell and Dutton expeditions helped to increase interest in the canyon and surrounding region"
  7. "Competition with the automobile forced the Santa Fe Railroad to cease operation of the Grand Canyon Railway in 1968 (only three passengers were on the last run). The railway was restored and service reintroduced in 1989, and it has since carried hundreds of passengers a day. Trains remained the preferred way to travel to the canyon until they were surpassed by the auto in the 1930s. By the early 1990s more than a million automobiles per year visited the park."
  8. "only to sell it nine years later in order to start a long career as a Grand Canyon guide"
  9. "The tourist flights over the canyon have also created a noise problem, so the number of flights over the park has been restricted."

There has been some attempt to add citations[19], but on conducting a spot check of one of these, I was unable to verify the article content[20]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Local Government Commission for England (1992)[edit]

Notified: Morwen, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

I am nominating this featured article for review because, while it is well-written and fairly comprehensive, it was awarded FA status back in November 2006, when standards here at Wikipedia were very different for GA and FA entries. In its current state, this page has various chunks of text, some of them fairly major, which are simply un-referenced, and that is not acceptable for an FA. I have raised this issue over at the article's talk page with the editor who first pulled this article up to FA, and on the basis of that discussion I felt that the next step was FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses[edit]

Notified: Bucs (FAC nominator, inactive), Ritchie333 (October 2014 comments on talk page); the WikiProjects with tags on the talk page: BBC / BBC Sitcoms Task Force / Comedy / Television / London / England
Notified: the three editors with the highest number of edits to the article (FAC nominator is fourth on that list): SteveO, FlapjackStantz and NewTestLeper79 - stats tool wasn't working yesterday so couldn't find out who the main editors were until now. BencherliteTalk 09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2006 FA, not reviewed since. Complaints about lack of citations in 2011 and in October 2014, unaddressed. Also unreliable sources (fan/self-published sites like www.ofah.net and www.epguides.com, tabloid newspapers). FA nominator Bucs is inactive. BencherliteTalk 11:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

In my view, the following are all deal breakers and mean the article does not meet the FA criteria, and I would pull up all these issues for discussion on a GA review as well:

  • A source "Clark (1998). Only Fools and Horses Story. p. 15." does not comply to FA standards - there is no mention of publisher, full name and ISBN. I realise this is actually mentioned in the prose down at "Merchanside" but ISBN numbers are part of references, not text. FA quality sources must make verification as easy as is practically possible.
  • The second paragraph in "History" is half-unsourced
  • "It attracted a respectable, though unspectacular (by those days' standards) 9.2 million viewers" - "respsectable" and "unspectacular" are just too POV for an FA. Just saying "it attracted 9.2 million viewers" would be better, and if the reader requires more information, a footnote listing typical audience figures for soaps and the most popular entertainment shows in 1981 would be informative and neutral. Additionally, this is the only place in the "History" section that gives viewing figures, the remainder is in the "Reception" section
  • "and allowed for more pathos in the series" - is unsourced
  • "The seventh series, which was to be the last, was aired in early 1991" - this is confusing, given that 12 years later you could still watch a new episode
  • The "Main cast" section is just far too rambling. This article may be read by somebody in America or India who may have a cursory knowledge of the show via syndicated repeats but even Brits who remember the show from day one (like me) would probably agree there is just too much detail here. Are "naive", "generally gormless" and "lacking common sense" good encyclopedic terms for Rodney?
  • The presence of File:JimBroadbent07TIFF_cropped.jpg seems to be a case of an article looking for a picture and not especially relevant to the show
  • The "Minor cast" information has too few sources. I realise a lot of this is of the "not challenged or likely to be challenged" variety, being simple "'x' played 'y'" facts
  • "Scenes such as .... have become iconic British comedy moments" - iconic is far too POV (and are they really as iconic as "Don't Tell 'em Pike", "Don't Mention The War", "And it's goodnight from me...", "Look, this isn't an argument", insert audio clip of David Brent singing Disco Inferno here etc etc)
  • "Other British slang words commonly used and popularised in the series include "dipstick", "wally" and "twonk", all mild ways of calling someone an idiot." - unsourced, "commonly used"? "popularised"? Says who?
  • "Several books have been published, most notably the officially sanctioned "The Only Fools and Horses Story" by Steve Clark" - see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED
  • "It also featured on a cavalcade of everyday items" - I would not have expected to see the word "cavalcade" here, and the information following is unsourced, so I've got no idea if any of the spinoff merchandise is important, whether it's collectable or not, does it fetch a good price on eBay, who knows?

I appreciate that is just a brief scan through the article, but from just that brief spin through I think it is currently around B/C class, certainly nowhere near an FA. The lack of sourcing is a showstopper, without that I cannot see any way of this article being quickly salvaged to retain current FA status, and would support a motion to delist.

Also pinging @SandyGeorgia: who was involved in the original FA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dismal. In the FAC, I only got to citation formatting issues, said I would read through it later, but never got to it; I think I bowed out there because it was so odd that an editor with a name too close to mine was editing right behind me. I don't think it should have passed FAC, but standards were lower then. The articlehistory was wrong;[21] something seems to have changed in the date formatting department. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that date thing. BencherliteTalk 13:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Here is the version that passed FAC; it had a competent GA reviewer (RelHistBuff was a good editor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My review of this article at User:Dweller/Featured_Articles_that_haven't_been_on_Main_Page implies that I felt it was fairly iredeemable as an FA. Unless someone is going to volunteer to put in one heck of a lot of legwork, we might as well start talking about defeaturing. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • In cases like this, it is unfortunate, but we still have to wait two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi Sandy. Fair enough. Though a little voice in my head goes "Why?" --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For reference, SteveO has replied to my message, saying "It has been obvious the article has needed work for some time, I just haven't had the time or inclination recently. I'll try to get round to it at a later point, but it won't be before the FAR ends." BencherliteTalk 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ina Garten[edit]

Notified: Air.dance, Javaweb, WP Women writers, WP Food and drink
URFA nom
Talk page notified Jan 2015

This is a 2005 FA that has taken on uncited text; there are other issues also noted on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually came onto this article's talk page with the intent of suggesting that this article be sent to FAR. There is a lot of un-referenced prose in this article; this being the case, it would not pass a GAN today, let alone a FAC. At this current stage I would be inclined toward de-listing it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no edits, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC only edit since the start of the FAR is someone refining a category. BencherliteTalk 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Rush (band)[edit]

Notified: Wisdom89, BorgHunter, Fnlayson, WP Rock music, WP Canadian music
URFA nom
Talk page notified Jan 2015

This is a 2006 FA that has taken on uncited text and some MOS issues, and a prose tuneup might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Trade and use of saffron[edit]

Notified: Saravask, WP Agriculture, WP Plants, WP Food and drink
URFA nom
Talk page noticed January 2015

This is a 2006 FA whose main editor is mostly inactive, and that has taken a good deal of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it just need citations, or how much more would there be to this? MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If an editor appears who has access to the sources and is willing to work on the article, I'll do a more thorough review, and list any additional issues noted. The article was well written when it passed FAC, so a diff of changes since FAC could be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I will see what sources are available and get back here with what I can do. A lot of the FA requirements are beyond my patience but sourcing an agriculture trade article is not. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have access to a university library, so I don't take on improving an article unless someone else can do the sourcing part-- if you can do that, I can help with any other cleanup needed as we go. This is a deliberative process, so keep the page posted, and I'll weigh in to review as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not a very readable article compared to when it was a Featured Article. I found the main editor and compared versions from 2007, when he/she was still editing. Simple statements based on sources have been canged to Latinate hemming and hawing; it will be more work than expected, but I will give it a go. I hope you are not a person who disparages a good three letter word when one can find seven three syllable words with Latin roots to obscure meaning. Sometmes "big" is best. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Would it be easier to revert to the featured version, and then compare what changed, and update production stats and anything else that is new? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be more readable. I was going to try that in my sandbox first, then compare paragraphs. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Saravask was a competent writer, so that may be the way to go ... restoration may be painstaking in sandbox, but I submit it will yield a better outcome than trying to fix all the new additions since the FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
He/she wrote well in a style that makes you enjoy reading; after posting in my sandbox, I see it even looks beautiful on screen. Sigh. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I misspoke on reverting to the FA version (2006). I see that Saravask last edited it in 2011, so a good version would be found more recently. Which (date?) version are you starting from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I picked from their last edit in December 2007. They appeared to stay on top of all edits until then. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I missed all the 2011 edits. I picked this edit but will look at the last 2011 one before moving on. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the one closer to the FA is better. I will work in sections and be careful with edits. First, reading about the saffron trade! MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK ... did you notice article talk that you're working in sandbox? Ping me when I should have a look. Thanks !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I will not be working on this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you've already left, Micro, and your page is deleted, so I'll say here that I'm really sorry to see you go. Not only because your help here was invaluable, but also because I hate it when bot and bot-operator silliness chases off content contributors. I will go mention on article talk that we lost you ... my best wishes to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else willing to work on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC; it looked like MicroPaLeo was able to restore the article, but s/he has left Wikipedia, and no one else has taken this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Enzyme[edit]

Notified: TimVickers, Vital articles/Expanded, Vital articles, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, WikiProject Genetics

I am nominating this featured article for review because, I think this article doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's a lot sections or sentence need additional footnotes, "Uncompetitive inhibition", "Non-competitive inhibition", "Mixed inhibition", "Uses of inhibitors", "Control of activity" said there's five main ways that enzyme activity is controlled in the cell, but two sections without any footnotes, consider this article are already been featured for more than 8 years, I think is time to have a good review here.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Also, I had nominated the article translated from this article (version 2007) for FAR at Chinese Wikipedia, and there's a huge objections against to me personally, apparently a lot wikipedians there feel this is such an "important", "vital" article, so doesn't need to strictly follow the criteria, or least should had a "different" criteria, or pointed out there's only 3 footnotes at German version, 29 footnotes at Japanese version, but they're all featured articles... The thing that make this even more pathetic is, there's nobody, I mean nobody done anything to improve it, I could only hope nothing similiar will happen at here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See the WP:FAR instructions; you were supposed to give two weeks notice. Eight days is cutting it close: [22]. I suggest that an email to Tim Vickers would resolve the issues; he is no longer active, but he is still around. I will email him now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Tim is notified. @WP:FAR coordinators: coordinators will decide if this FAR should remain listed, since the requisite two to three weeks notification was not given (marginal at eight days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't really up to standards any more. Knotty and technical lead, random little factoids that have crept into the text, and not enough references. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim ... so I recommend this article remain listed, even though FAR instructions were not followed. Good to "see you" again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to apologize for the inconvenient that I caused, I have no intention to do anything harm the procedural fairness. Mostly I'm only active at Chinese wikipedia, translate articles from here to there, so I'm not quite familiar with the procedure here, and as everybody here could notice that my English are very poorly. The last article I nominated for reivew is Paul Kane, almost one year ago, down there is FAR coordinator Nikkimaria's reply, "If in a week or two there has been no action, feel free to re-raise this FAR." So I thought one week is just fine. Again, I apologize for this, feel free to do anything that fit the procedure.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It's like a 2006 reunion in here. I wandered back a few weeks ago and this popped up on my watchlist, so I cleaned out some of the creeping cruft. A couple of quick comments before I forget:
  • References: I see at least eight textbooks in the ref list - Stryer 2002, Voet & Voet 2011, Moran 2012, Cornish-Bowden 2004, Blackstock 1989, Price 2000, Skett 2001, and Suzuki 2015. Cornish-Bowden and Suzuki look a little more specialized, but the rest are general biochemistry textbooks cited for very basic general claims. It'd be nice to either consolidate on one offline text (recent edition of Stryer or Voet & Voet presumably) or replace/supplement with links to relevant sections of the Stryer edition supplied by NCBI Bookshelf here.
  • Lead image: I hate to object to one of Willow's images, but I don't love this one. The rotation is fast enough to be distracting on a small screen where it dominates the text, and there's not enough depth cuing - am I the only one who gets the spinning dancer effect here? My brain can't seem to make up its mind on which way the protein is spinning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with O. regalis on the rotating lead image problems (at time of writing, boghog has replaced it with as static version). The fast spinning is a bit distracting (compare to slower version). Perspective in protein ribbon diagrams is often difficult but rendering outlines helps by resolving which loop is in front of which.
I'd love to render a new lead image if others are happy - Are we set on glyoxalase? I think it'd be better to use a structure with bound substrate to show the active site. Any suggestions? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! No particular attachment to glyoxalase from me. How about lysozyme? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Lysozyme has the advantage of being a relatively small enzyme that is easy to view in a small figure (see example). I also agree that it would be good to show a bound substrate (or product). PDB 148L might be appropriate (catalytically inactive mutant lysozyme with substrate). I used PyMol to create the graphic and I agree that the default cartoon is harder to visual in a small figure. Using the setting cartoon_fancy_helices, 1 produces a more distinct outline. Boghog (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Good suggestion on consolidating the book citations. I will work on this (using the online Stryer NCBI Bookshelf as much as possible) as I find time. Boghog (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks like a good choice for the lysozyme structure. Thanks for working on Stryer - I think it's a good idea to have an accessible online reference for the kind of basic information these textbook cites are mostly attached to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There are incomplete citations everywhere, and some of the new citations breach WP:CITEVAR (Tim used the Diberri format). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistent journal citations are now used throughout (note: {{vcite2 journal}} templated citations render identically to Diberri format: Vancouver system for authors and CS1 style for everything else). Citations with PMIDs should be complete. A few journal citations that are not stored in PubMed as well as book citations may be incomplete. I will try to locate and add the missing citation data. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! What I'm seeing now is numerous websites that have no publisher listed, and no accessdate. If no one else gets to those, I can eventually do them. The journals are consistent now, but it's the websites that have incomplete citation info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, looks like I cargo-culted the {{vcite2 journal}} template without fixing the author parameters. Thanks for fixing that and the web citations, Boghog. (BTW, what tool are you using to fix the template parameters and retrieve the DOIs? The auto-PMID-filler doesn't seem to capture DOIs.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
And thank you Opabinia regalis for the extensive work that you have put in getting this article back to FA standard. In answer to your question, I am using Wikipedia template filling which is essentially Diberri's tool with one minor change ({{cite journal|author}}{{vcite2 journal|vauthors}}). This tool obtains its data from PubMed. PubMed doesn't always have the DOIs either, so sometimes I manually fill these in. Boghog (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! So I guess you have a script that runs that tool for all the malformatted PMID-containing templates in an article? Either that or you have a hell of a lot more patience than I do ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Citations look good now (thanks, everyone!), except that I'm not sure that introducing inline page numbers isn't a change in style that introduces inconsistency-- not fussed about it, but not thrilled with it either.

On the other hand, there are MOS issues everywhere. Image captions are overly long to the point that the text in them should be cited, image layout is creating problems with text, there is incorrect use of italics and bolding throughout (I got some of it, but by no means all), etc ... a thorough MOS review will be needed once text is settled. And this is a glaring WP:MSH issue:

  • 5 Cofactors and coenzymes
    • 5.1 Cofactors
    • 5.2 Coenzymes

This is another MSH issue:

  • 8 Inhibition
    • 8.1 Types of inhibition
    • 8.2 Functions of inhibitors

The text in the lead is bouncing all over the place, with no clear flow (the lead in the featured version did not have that problem ... returning to some of Tim's original wording might help).

Repetitive prose: half (three out of six) of the paragraphs in "Etymology and history" begin with "In <date>" ... prose needs to be varied.

Do we really need that bolding in the chart in "Industrial applications"?

Further reading and External links need some serious pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestions Sandy. I nuked the external links section since it didn't seem to contain any links of great value. Concerning inline page numbers, I am not sure what the best solution is. Different pages of the same textbook are being cited to support different statements and it is important to specify the specific page that is being cited. The options are (1) repeat the full citation, changing only the page number, (2) use {{rp}} as is done now, or (3) switch to {{sfn}} templates. Option #1 is redundant, #2 is the simplest, but is a bit messy looking and as you say inconsistent, and #3 is more complicated and harder to maintain. IMHO, as long as {{rp}} is not used too often, solution #2 is the most practical. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead: back to something very similar to Tim's version.
  • History section: tweaked prose a little.
  • External links removed (thanks Boghog!) and further reading trimmed.
  • Italics/bold sorted out, I think.
  • Page numbers: this problem gets a 'meh' from me. I think it's a case of false precision to be pointing at specific pages in specific editions of specific printed textbooks for basic material that can be found in most college-level textbooks on the subject, not to mention that the internet is full of mostly futile attempts to explain enzyme kinetics to premeds. These must all be in the same chapter/section of the book; maybe just cite "chapter 3" or whatever it is.
  • Industrial applications table: if this hadn't been in the featured version I would've suggested moving it to its own page. It's ugly and bulky. I think the bold text does help highlight the applications in the table, since the rows are all different sizes and they don't all have a picture.
  • Images: I'm a little lost on the image-crowding issue you mentioned in your edit summaries, Sandy. I'm looking at it on a very small screen (macbook air) and I don't see problems. I put File:Competitive_inhibition.svg back to the larger size because it's unreadable as a thumbnail (but maybe a simpler image would be better). File:Methotrexate_and_folic_acid_compared.png should probably be replaced in any case with a 2D SVG version with the compounds stacked rather than mirrored; much easier to see the differences that way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not fussed about the page numbers, and agree with Boghog's analysis of the options (prefer those to dreaded sfn). On the images, I can live with it if others disagree-- I will look at the article on other computers and browsers once we're "almost there". Thanks everyone for rescuing Tim's work !!!

Can someone who speaks biology address the MSH issues I mentioned above, by perhaps renaming the overall sections so that the sub-sections aren't repeats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot about the headers. Fixed the cofactors (turns out the two subarticles got merged at some point anyway). Call me unimaginative but I'm not coming up with a good solution for inhibition; making the subheads 'types' and 'functions' is unsatisfying. Enzyme inhibitor has a lot of TOC repetition too, for the same reason. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm planning on going through the images this weekend and updating several of them to be at least in a consistent style, and better labelled. Additionally, I agree that the table is horribly formatted - can we reformat it somewhat (e.g. WP:MST) with either shading, or altering the orientation of the cells? Ps, sorry if I'm indenting wrong, I struggle with wikimarkup formatting in longer conversation threads! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Removing the images from the chart would be a good step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's great on the images, thanks! I did think those black backgrounds were looking a little dated.
I tried removing the images from the table and tweaking the cell alignment; it looks a little less sloppy now. Also trimmed some cruft and fixed some links. The idea of decorative images here isn't bad, but they're hard to format and even if we make them all consistent sizes, cruft will creep back in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jarodalien, if you have any remaining concerns about the article, could you please list them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Based from the version I can see now, feels:
  1. lead section, too many paragraph;
  2. five types of inhibition, four main ways to control enzyme activity, their names should not be boldface;
  3. More footnotes: "Structure" (second & third paragraph), "Thermodynamics", "Involvement in disease", "Naming conventions", "Kinetics" (second paragraph), "Functions of inhibitors" (first paragraph, and "A common example of an irreversible inhibitor that is used as a drug is aspirin, which inhibits the COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes that produce the inflammation messenger prostaglandin, thus suppressing pain and inflammation."), examples at "Industrial applications" should all have footnotes, just feel featured articles should not require readers go to another article try to locate a source.
That's all, thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarodalien. From this version reviewed, I see the issues on 1 and 3. On number 2 (the issue of bold in the lists), at the time this article was written, WP:MOSBOLD called for bolding of items in a bullet-point list. It no longer does, as far as I can tell. I don't know when that change was made, but it does appear that what was once correct per MOS is no longer called for, and that bolding should be removed. Perhaps Maralia has kept up with that MOS issue, or one of the other FAC or FAR coordinators ... @WP:FAC coordinators: , @WP:FAR coordinators: ... and can inform us on current guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Boghog, per WP:ITALICS, I'm not sure that changing the bolded list to italics is correct;[23] see my explanation above for why the list was bolded (it was called for in older versions of MOS). And to whomever has dealt with this, thank you !!!! Overuse of however; (I thought I had checked Tim's version for too much however, henceforth, furthermore, and subsequently ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I don't have any really strong feels about this and I will not oppose changing it back if that is the consensus. I wanted to note however that the guidelines on the use of italics and bolding in these situations is not so clear. These bolded/italicized phrases beginning each bullet point are functionally equivalent to section headings. Per MOS:BOLD, one use of bolding is [t]o identify terms ... at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section. However in this case, there are already separate articles devoted to each these terms. According to WP:HEAD, Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. Also IMHO, the look of bolded wiki links is somewhat jarring. One possible solution is to move the links out of the bolded phrases entirely. Finally per MOS:EMPHASIS, Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia These bulleted lists can be considered an embedded lists and in particular definition lists. I have formatted the list using H:DL markup (<semicolon> "term" <colon> "definition"). Does this look any better? Boghog (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I now also moved the wiki links from the bolded term headings to the prose in this edit. Does this look OK? Boghog (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Much better, thanks Boghog! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Two weeks in, and the article is still a long way from standard-- mostly uncited text at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Long discussion with subheads moved to the talk page in this edit per comments below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Um, someone made a wreck of the Table of Contents at WP:FAR by adding sub-heads here ... please review FAR instructions ("... and should avoid segmenting review pages ..."), and we can use article talk for lengthy commentary (please do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that this page is transcluded into WP:FAR. The length of this review is getting pretty long and is become difficult to navigate and edit. Perhaps it would be best to move the last two sections of this review to the enzyme talk page. Boghog (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, see above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other outstanding source concerns here? I am out of time this week for writing that isn't work, but digging up niggling references is doable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Lots of good work, but uncited text still. Jarodalien, perhaps you could add cn tags on any text that you believe still needs citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hyderabad[edit]

Talk page notification: December 2014
Notified: Omer123hussain, WikiProject Cities, Noticeboard for India-related topics

I am nominating this featured article for review because since its promotion the new state of Telangana has been created. This has introduced instability to the article, and a blanket change of all mentions of Andhra Pradesh to Telangana has resulted in frankly false statements such as the claim that Hyderabad is in the north-western part of Telangana, which it isn't. The entire article needs copy-editing, fact-checking and updating. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concerns, but I dont think there is any emergency to review the articles FA status, We had been visiting the article regularly and updated required changes and c/e. May be minor corrections are required which we can do with concensus by discussing on articles talkpage, I am ready to cooperate. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There is now only one part of the article that I am not happy about, but as it is in the lead, and impacts on more than one of the featured article criteria, it is sufficient to preclude me from supporting the FA status of this article. Namely, the article says that Hyderabad State join[ed] the Indian Union in 1948. Such wording implies that the State joined willingly, and it entirely omits to mention the invasion. Firstly, this is not neutral: it is bias towards the Hindu viewpoint that the annexation of Hyderabad was justified. I understand that saying the invasion was illegal would be seen as a Muslim viewpoint and also bias; however, the way to resolve such a disagreement is to come to a compromise, not select one view over another. I also feel that this phrase is neither comprehensive, since it omits key details, nor well-researched, since it does not reflect the prevailing consensus that Hyderabad was invaded and annexed. If joining cannot be replaced with was annexed by or was incorporated into, then something more substantial needs to be said, to avoid misleading readers.
The last discussion on the talk page that seems to tackle this issue (Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 5#Corrections and clarifications needed....) suggests instead of after joining the Indian Union in 1948, and ... the wording: after 1948, when the Nizam signed an Instrument of Accession with the Indian Union at the conclusion of Operation Polo. It ... I see no opposition to this on the talk page. It is worded more fairly than the present but less concisely than one of the other alternatives, so I propose this as a third alternative wording. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sir, its a very valid point you (DrKiernan) highlighted, I suggest to replace Joined with brought. "The city continued as the capital of Hyderabad State after it was brought into the Indian Union in 1948". Hope it works. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've put it in. Let's see how it plays. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Close without FARC, having gotten a swift response to my one remaining concern. Even if the new wording does not take hold, I believe this single point (which only effects one word) should be resolvable through ordinary editing or on the talk page of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "Common capital of ... " section, I suggest we need either some re-phrasing or quote marks from the text supported by this source. Based on that, a spotcheck for close paraphrasing might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It is better if we chopp that section Common_capital or atleast merge it into some suitable section, The same phrases are mentioned in Notes. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the section should be kept since it is clearly an important point, but the note and notes section could be cut; I presume they are only there because there was disagreement over whether it was a common capital at first. Personally, I don't think it's a problem to quote from the act, given that it is clearly marked as a quote and it precludes disagreements if we just report what the act says. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • DrK, you lost me on "clearly marked as a quote"? I'm talking about the top ofthis section, which is not in quotes, or indicated as a quote, or paraphrased adequately ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see; I've added quote marks. DrKiernan (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the uploader at flickr had changed the license to one that is no longer compatible, but it is not possible to revoke rights once released. The image was originally uploaded to flickr as cc-by, and so it remains cc-by. The subsequent change at flickr to by-nc-nd is invalid. I have added a note to the file. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • DrKiernan, if you are still satisfied, then I concur with Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Climate section needs attention. The prose and the weatherbox disagree on figures repeatedly. They are cited to different sources, which themselves represent data for wildly disparate date ranges. The prose cites a source that claims anywhere from 18–50 "years on record", while the weatherbox is based on sources covering 1951–1980 and 1971–1990. This results in such anomalies as different months being determined the coldest (January or December?). Aside from the internal inconsistency issue, data that ends at 1980 or 1990 seems quite insufficient especially when it comes to climate. Maralia (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hope its okay now, thanks DrKiernan for your prompt action. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I wasn't clear. Before, we had numbers in the prose and the weatherbox that did not agree, and data in the weatherbox that was sorely out of date. With this edit, the numbers in the prose now match the weatherbox, but the underlying problem of out-of-date data remains: the weatherbox does not reflect any data from the past 25 (and sometimes 35) years. Maralia (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, User talk:Sportskido8

The article was promoted in November 2006 and has not been kept up to featured article standards. I'll outline below some specific issues, but overall there are a lot of citation issues, dead links, and prose problems.

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • A copyedit would help here. The writing style seems just slightly outdated and has not been kept up with since the FAC was passed, specifically all of the information about the team that has been plugged in since 2006. Examples include:
  • "Martin Brodeur, their longtime goalie signed to the team for two additional years, and ended speculation that his career was over. He will enter his 21st season, after turning 40 on May 6, 2012, during the Stanley Cup Playoffs second round, game 4 against the Philadelphia Flyers." -- this has passed by now?
  • "Goalie Johan Hedberg and rookie goalie Keith Kinkaid were used when Brodeur was injured however neither of them performed well enough to help the Devils put anything together."
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Article doesn't neglect any major facts, as I'll explain a few points down.. it instead has too much information in many spots.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • For some of the older history, it's okay. Anything from 2001 through present time, have to say no.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Some spots need attention.. for example "The team would now be playing right in the middle of the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut tri-state area, home to the three-time defending Stanley Cup champion New York Islanders, as well as the very popular New York Rangers." --- "the very popular New York Rangers"?
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • No problems here.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Doesn't look too bad, however per WP:LEDE it shouldn't have any citations in it. All of the info is covered and sourced in the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • I believe this is still pretty OK, compared with all of the other NHL team articles. I do wonder, though if any of the "Team identity" or "Players and personnel" subsections can be combined?
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • No, for the most part. A good chunk of sources are not consistently formatted, many aren't even slightly formatted.
  • Many spots in the article are currently not sourced at all, mainly in the "2001–2007: A third Cup and the lockout" and "2007–2013: Move to Newark and Return to the Finals" sections. The first three paragraphs in the 2007-2013 section don't have a single source, as well as two paragraphs in the middle, and the final two paragraphs at the end of the section.
  • There are sections that are completely unsourced, such as "Home arenas", "Affiliate teams", and "Television and radio" and a very good amount of "Players and personnel"
  • Many dead and problematic links
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images incl