Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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 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. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, embolden headings). The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determines 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 director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: 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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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. 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 delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Today's featured article statistics Most viewed today's featured articles Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Related pages: Good articles Good topics

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text 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. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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. 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 director 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. 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. Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations

Thomas Blamey

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The only Australian-born field marshal remains a controversial figure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC),BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm bringing this back for a second nomination because I believe all issues raised in the previous discussion have been addressed now, and two weeks have lapsed since it was closed. To recap on my reason for nomination, I feel the article is close to meeting the standard required for featured article content, is comprehensive, well referenced and neutral, and has been surprisingly stable given the topic's blanket media coverage throughout 2011. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. If you feel any graphical changes are necessary (e.g., maps, timelines, etc) I would appreciate some assistance with that as I use screen magnification which can make such things a tad difficult. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Paul McDermott that the article is close to meeting the standard required for featured article content. And it's not much that is needed to be done before being ready for FA.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Nominator(s): kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured Article Criteria. I think it is well written (although I am not in the habit of calling myself, or my writing, brilliant), and covers the topic well. I have looked for media to include, and alwyas come up short, even in my request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for some PD images. kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• 'Tailing[s]' needs to be linked; I would say it is by no means a term familiar to general readers.
  • Tailings is linked in the lead.
• 'resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).' reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps: 'causing a rise of 50 ft in the floor elevation of the lake'?
  • It is awkward, I changed it to "causing the floor elevation of the lake to rise 50 ft (15 m)." It's a little less wordy than both.
• No citations for the third paragraph in Background; are there statements here whose validity might be disputed?
  • They were souced with the same reference as in the following paragraph, but should have had a reference at the end of the paragraph, it's done now.
• The lede does not discuss any material from "Subsequent Developments".
  • I'm having a think about how to do this...

- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Newspaper names should be italicized
  • Done.
• Use a consistent date format
  • Done. I thought I had (DMY), but I hadn't, so I switched it all to MDY (US topic, use US dating).
• Be consistent in whether you use "AP" or "Associated Press"
  • Done - opted for full spelling
• This source gives a publication date of June 22, but you say May 23 - why?
  • Stupidity on my part? Only reason I can think of, It's fixed.
• Single pages should use "p."; "pp." is for multiple pages
  • Yes they should be, when I used the handy template tool at the top to add it, it used the field "pages" rather than "page", it's fixed now, and I know to check that in the future :).
• Don't need retrieval date for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
  • Removed, it had came up when I did the "check links" prior to nominating it, so I added then.
• Isn't this the same as the version in the Seattle Times? It lists the same author and title
  • Yes they have the same author and title, and cover a lot of the same information, but they were written a day apart, and don't say the exact same thing. For example. the Seattle Times does not list the reaction of Sarah Palin. However, all the material that was sourced by the SPI can be sourced with The Guardian, however not vise versa. I am replacing have replaced all the SPI references with TG.

While the sources used seem reliable, there are only 6 of them. What steps have you taken to look for additional material? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The last "big look" I did was when during the GA review in December last year, there is nothing new coming out of the decision, and I didn't find it referenced as precidence in any other cases (the question I was asked at GA). I have also looked on the EPA and the USACE websites for pictures to include, but haven't found anything. I have found the EPA Record of Decision and the USACE Notice of Application for Permit.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Bicentennial coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This nom failed through lack of reviews several months ago, I'm bringing it back for another shot.Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why give page number in footnote for Webster 1986 and Reiter 1981 but not for Bardes 1974 or Reiter 1979?
• FN 36: shouldn't italicize AP. Also, why use that type of date formatting here? Complete dates aren't given for other news or magazine sources
• How are you ordering "Other sources"?
• File:1976_Bicentennial_Quarter_Rev.png could use a better description
• File:1976HalfReverse.jpg: suggest using the coin-specific tag instead
• File:Scott1479.jpg: what does "Scott 1479" refer to? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will look though these. On Scott 1479, that is that stamp's Scott catalogue number.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus corrected the page number matters when he saw your note, for which I thank him. The other things are done. The Other Sources are now by author, with the anonymous works by first significant letter of publication name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Darren Osborne

Nominator(s): D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel the article could be a featured article having already reached GA status. The article has been through a peer review were several points were brought up and addressed. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't need to bracket ellipses unless there's an ellipsis in the source
• The name of this source doesn't appear to be "Cross examiner"
• Check capitalization in footnotes
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
• Ranges should consistently use endashes
• Watch out for typos (ex. FN 50)
• Use consistent formatting for print magazines and newspapers - compare for example FNs 48 and 53
• Don't write titles in all-caps
• FN 96: formatting
• Seem to be relying quite heavily on Digital Spy spoilers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Xerochrysum bracteatum

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I planted some of these in my garden and they looked great, so I did some reading...and buffed the article. am nominating this for featured article because I don't think I can better it. It got a thorough .going-over by Choess (talk · contribs).....have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• What kind of source is FN 1?

• a book, now formatted and linked to original 206 year old description Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Should identify language for foreign-language sources

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fn 16: formatting

• Dang, it's the template. Will try and tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books, and if so when you include state/country names

• book publisher/locations added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 30: punctuation

• got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Melbourne the same as Port Melbourne? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's a suburb of Melbourne. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice article. A few comments

Lead

• Opening sentence: the "'native to Australia" bit seems like it should have a verb in it.

• I think the comma throws it out - have removed offending comma Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Second sentence: "up to a metre high", or tall?

• I have used them interchangeably, but agree tall is less ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fifth sentence: "larvae of leopidoptera" or lepidopterans? Seems like since the adjectival form is in common(ish) use, it probably should be used here.

• adjectival form used. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Second para, third sentence: sold in seed packs "in many countries" - unless there's some sense of what countries (e.g., "many countries in Europe") the statement conveys very little information. In addition, the density of "many" is two high (twice in that sentence, once near the start of the next). I woiul just say "Many of these are still sold in seed packs" and leave it at that

• yeah, removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fourth sentence: "and have become popular garden plants" or "which have"? There's a subtle difference in meaning, and I suspect you're going for the latter.

• Yes, it is the perennials that are more popular here - "and" reads alright to me but agree "which" is less ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Ventenat "first described" or "described"? Yes, it was the first description of the species, but it sounds like it was Ventenat's first description, which he later followed up with his second and third.

• yeah, took it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is "bract" a common enough word that it will be understood with just a link? I think a picture showing the bracts would be useful - if one isn't readily available, what about trimming a detail out of the image in the infobox? There are a couple dry heads in there with visible bracts. A nice little explanation in the image caption would solve the problem without having to engage in a long discussion in the text. Given that the species is named for its bracts, it seems like the kind of thing a reader might be curious about. Quite frankly, I know what bracs are, and I found myself looking for an image here that shows the bracts, rather than the flowers.

• I've switched images and will crop the closep and draw some lines on it tonight to illustrate features Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Andrews reclassified it as Helichrysum bracteatum" - APNI cites "Andrews, H.C. (1805), The Botanist's Repository for New, and Rare Plants 6: sub. t. 428" which I believe to be this in which he justifies the placement of Elychrisum staehelina in Elychrysum (as he spelt it), and later says "X. bracteatum (Plate 375), now Elychrisum bracteatum". Back there, he justifies moving the species out of Xeranthemum based on the fact that "the structure of the receptable...being of great consequence in the formation and distribution of genera". So is this a reclassification? To me, "reclassification" suggests a much greater change in placement. He moves it from one genus to another, he does appear to leave it in the same class and order. There's something about "reclassify" that feels just a tad too major for this transfer...but this is just a very minor nit to pick (and I may be wrong). You might want to consider saying that Andrews transferred it to the genus Helichrysum based on the morphology of its receptable. If not, that's fine - don't consider this an outstanding objection.

• yeah, I like that. I have a more inclusive notion of "reclassified" to include minor rejigs of binomials but I think "transferred" is more exacting here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Henckel and Persoon's descriptions - these are based on different types, presumably. Is that worth mentioning, or would that be obvious to the average reader?

• I can't read what Persoon's type is, but was musing that maybe as they are names coined and forgotten over 200 years ago, might not be worth dwelling on (??). Henckel reports something about the very bold Baudin fetching that specimen, which is sorta cool.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "Anderberg and Haegi placed the members that are known as strawflowers of the large genus Helichrysum" - sentence structure seems odd...perhaps "the members of the large genus Helichrysum" that are known as strawflowers"?

• The gist is that within the large genus Helichrysum (which was a wastebasket taxon), there were several species known as strawflowers which were moved to a new genus Bracteantha (not that the members were all known as strawflowers....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I got that. It just seemed like putting "that are known as strawflowers" before "of the large genus Helichrysum" made the sentence awkward. Hadn't thought that my suggestion changes the meaning. Guettarda (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• What about something like "...when A&H split the large genus Helichrysum, and placed {the species commonly known as strawflowers/placed the strawflowers} into a new genus Bracteantha". And, btw, if you're interested in shaving a few words off a long sentence, "given the name" could be replaced by "renamed" or simply "named". Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have a think - they didn't split the genus in 2001 but more hived off some species. Many others remained in hte genus pending further review - Coronidium elatum was not transferred until 2008. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 8: "Bracteantha appearing in literature and horticulture" - "in horticulture" or "in the horticultural trade"?

• I'll pay that - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 9: "A 2002 molecular study of the tribe Gnaphalieae" - no prior mention that the species has been placed in that tribe. It probably shouldn't be something the reader has to infer.

• Yeah, have rejigged it so there is an introductory statement and explanation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 2: "The species itself is very variable and may represent several undescribed species" - can you rephrase that so it doesn't start and end with "species"?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 3: "in garden situations" or "in cultivation"?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Description

• Sentence 1: "have a prostrate habit" - is that language too botanical?

• now linked to Prostrate shrub Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 2: "when compared with" or "in comparision with" rather than "compared to"

• to --> with Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 3: "The leaves are lanceolate, elliptic or oblanceolate" - might want to link to leaf shape here.

• Have linked to the adjectives on wiktionary, and also slotted in a link to leaf shape. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: " are occasionally multiple on the one stem" - phrasing seems a little awkward

• rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Paras 2 & 3: I'm a little confused here - are you saying that the colours "petals" are actually the bracts, and not ray florets? If not, the description isn't clear enough. If so, this seems noteworthy enough to mention. And since you have some good pix of the heads, it might be nice to include a picture of an individual head here, with a caption pointing out these various features.

• Aah, the petals refers to other plants in general, not this species - that was from the source. Reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking at some images for anatomy. All mine lasted two summers and have burnt out now :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• "occurs in all mainland states and territories" - mighe be worth mentioning "Australia" somewhere in there, for those readers who have long since forgotten that single mention in the lead. Might it be worth mentioning that it is an endemic?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ecology

• So I suppose that's a "yes", these are bracts, not ray florets. Interesting. Not that I'm a composite expert by any stretch...

• "Grasshoppers also visit" - just to be clear (since I can't access that page in Google books), grasshoppers visit the flowers? As pollinators? Or to munch on some petals...I mean bracts?

• I can't tweak it more than this, as the source doesn't say why or what floral parts are visited Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The plant pathogen Bremia lactucae" - isn't "plant pathogen" a tad vague? Oomycete or water mold would probably be more informative. The abstract of the source also mentions B. lactucae infecting the species in the UK and Egypt. Is there some reason to only mention Italy and California?

• clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 3, last sentence: "The root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) attacks the roots, forming galls on the roots" - too many roots in one sentence.

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultivation

• Sentence 3: "which spread over Europe in the 1850s" - spread in or across Europe maybe? "Spread over Europe" makes it sound like it covered the continent, choking out all life ;)

• I will reserve "spread over Europe" for poaceae articles... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 1, Last sentence - I've alwasy been told that you shouldn't abbreviate a genus name at the start of a sentence.

• unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 1 in general - the sentences are a bit long and complex. Simplification would improve readability.

• Para 2, sentence 1: "newer" probably isn't required given that the sentence is talking about the latter 20th century.

• yep. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 4: "Many lose popularity" is vague; I think the latter part of the sentence, about the 3-year commercial lifespan, is the main point here, and you should lead with that.

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "known as Sundaze" should follow "of compact plants", not split it from "range"

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 7: " ""Florabella Gold" is a member of the Florabella series, and won..." - unless you want to say what the "Florabella series" is, it would be better to ditch the "is" and the "and".

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 8: "Other ranges include..." - what's a range?

• added the adjective "commercial" - could change "range" here to "line" I suppose.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 3, sentence 3: "Dead-heading flowers" - "deadheading" probably needs explaining - I had no idea what that was (other than the linked meaning) for the longest while.

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultivars

• Better to spell out ACRA the first time it's used

• unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's a lot of white space (on my monitor, anyway) at the end of this section - might it be usedul to move the 'Strawberry Yellow' pic up a bit?

• moved a bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Guettarda (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten & Mitch Ames

At the risk of causing the extinction of the human race and—even worse—the end of Wikipedia, I am co-nominating this article for featured status with Mitch Ames. The content disputes that dominated the talk page (and spilled over to ANI) for a while have finally been resolved, and the article has passed GA, been copyedited, and been peer reviewed. I think we've found virtually all of the coverage they have received in quality sources, and I believe that the article is now as neutral as is possible. I hope you agree that it meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments were addressed at the PR. Good luck! ResMar 05:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, you were a lot of help at the peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments'

• "Knight, however, believes that even if humans become more environmentally friendly, they could still return to environmentally destructive lifestyles and thus should be eliminated." – Perhaps I am missing a point in American usage, but I'm pretty sure that the 'thus' should be 'hence' or 'therefore', as the sentence otherwise would mean that humans should be eliminated in this way – ie. a dead end/garden path.
• There are quite a few consecutive sentences in the 'Ideology' section which all start with 'He'. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, but it certainly makes the prose somewhat repetitive.
• "Philosophers Steven Best and Douglas Kellner view VHEMT's stance as extreme, but they note that the movement formed in response to what the group sees as extreme anthropocentrism." – I have no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me.
• These are all my quibbles; it's a pretty well written and sweet short article. Regards, Eisfbnore ^talk 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, points 2 and 3 were a bit tricky, but I had a go at them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting and comprehensive article on a rather odd topic: nice work. I have some comments though:

• The comma in the first sentence is unnecessary
• "that calls for the human race to abstain from reproduction" - surely they call for 'humans' to not reproduce
• " VHEMT argues that human extinction is preferable" - preferable to what?
• "who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction is the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity." - 'is' should be 'was', I think
• "Knight publishes the group's newsletter and serves as a spokesman for the movement." - 'Knight publishes the group's newsletter and is one of its spokesmen' perhaps? (including both 'group' and 'movement' in the same sentence is confusing)
• "Many commentators view its platform as unacceptably extreme, though some have applauded their perspective." - who's applauding who here? (read literally, this says that some commentators have applauded other commentators views)
• "a VHEMT newsletter" - were there others at this time?
• "In the newsletter, he asked readers not to procreate, to further human extinction." - second comma not needed
• The lead says that Knight is 'a spokesman' but the article says that he's 'the spokesman'
• What's an 'outreach' in this context?
• The 'ideology' section makes it appear that this 'movement' is really a one-man band as there's almost no coverage of differing views within its members. Is this correct? (though there probably isn't much room for debate in an organisation with such a clear cut - and absolute - goal!)
• 'The paper admits that Knight's support for reduction of the human population' 'admits' is rather non-neutral
• The 'reception' section's focus on what various writers have said about the organisation seems to miss the point that the organisation appears to have had no impact at all on the general public, and is hugely unlikely to ever have any. Nick-D (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks for your comments--you have a good eye for prose issues. I think I made all of your suggested changes. As far as the "one-man band" goes: basically yes, there are a few other members, but Knight pretty much runs it all. The only thing I could find about differing views is the quote by Ormrod in the second paragraph of ideology. As far as your last point goes, I've added a couple statements from Knight where he says that the group hasn't gotten a great reception/is unlikely to succeed. I'm not too sure what else to put there, most sources tend to take it for granted that they're not having much of an impact. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "Reception" and "impact" are not the same thing. For example, if they received a lot of publicity, so that a large percentage of the population knew about them, there might be a significant reception, eg everybody laughing at them and/or accusing them of being nutters, but virtually no impact because nobody agreed with them so everyone kept breeding. I'm not aware of specific references that indicate what sort of impact they are having - ie whether a significant (relative to the entire human population) number of people have chosen not to breed because of them. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with both of Nick-D's statements that the comma is unnecessary. Both sentences to which he refers have the same general form, with the comma in question indicated here in angle brackets:

"... calls for the human race to abstain from reproduction <comma> to cause ... extinction ..."

"... asked readers not to procreate <comma> to further human extinction."

In both cases, without the comma the sentence could easily be misread as implying (using the words of the first sentence here, but it applies to both) that reproduction causes extinction, ie with the last clause ("cause extinction") being bound to "reproduction" rather than being bound to "abstain from reproduction". With the comma, that incorrect binding doesn't happen. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Those changes look good to me, though a clearer statement on the movement's lack of success would be helpful, though as you note this is obviously self-evident. As another comment though, I'm going to take issue with the statement that "Voluntary extinction is seen as a laudable goal by The Economist". This is a fairly extraordinary claim, and is referenced only to a tongue in cheek speculative article from one of magazine's Christmas issues (which traditionally include several such lighthearted articles). I've been reading The Economist for well over a decade, and have never seen any references to such a position (in fact, The Economist generally advocates larger populations in developed countries and is relaxed about population issues in general). This and the following sentence should be dropped unless you can find a secondary source which states that this is the magazine's actual position. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I removed the bits about The Economist and the laudable goal and so on. (I was actually unaware of the Christmas issue thing, my mistake.) I'll ping Mitch and see if he can think up a good way to put it. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support All my comments (including those below) are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your detailed comments! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - check formatting on FN 14, otherwise fine. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, only one. I'm getting a lot better. I changed the formatting a bit, hope it's better now. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Spot checks

• Reference 1a: the article says that Knight lives in Portland, but not that he's a native of this city. References 1b and 1d check out. 1f: the references says the researcher counted "close to 400 people on Mr Knight’s mailing list", when you say that there were 'around 400'. I suggest changing this to something like 'just under 400' Please also note the above comment in relation to 1k.
• I don't own the same edition of Weisman as what was consulted in this article so I can't verify the page numbers, but the statements attributed to this book in refs 5a, 5c and 17 check out to my 2008 Virgin Books edition (5a,c to p. 242 and 17 to p. 243). I'm not sure about 5b though; my edition says that he "posts charts" at "Earth Day fairs and environmental conferences", but not that he speaks at them (which implies that he's been invited to speak as part of the conference program), so please double-check your copy.
• 6a and 6b check out
• 8a and 8d are fine (and the Fox News story is more reasonable than its hysterical headline implies!)
• 13a and 13b check out
• Reference 18: The article says that VHEMT's aim is "in many ways laudable" when you've just used "laudable". He doesn't 'question' "whether compassion for the planet can drive humans to voluntary extinction", but actually describes such a notion as being absurd (particularly the voluntary component of this). All up, this article is a bit more negative towards the group's aims than the quotes make it out to be.
• Reference 19 checks out
• Reference 22 is also fine
• There were no problems at all with close paraphrasing in any of the above spot checks. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for the spotcheck. I rephrased the information sourced to 1a, 1f, 1k, 5b, and 18 in light of your comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I should also note (as a image review) that the article's only image is used under an appropriate fair use claim. It might actually be a free image though, as the organisation's website states that "Except where noted, works on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License" and no exception for this image is identified. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Huh, interesting, thanks. I've changed the licence on the picture's page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very well-written article about an interesting subject. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm glad you kept pushing me to nominate this :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments

(Resolved comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk page)

• Support -- Short and to the point; great for an article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting and engaging, has my support. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Roza Shanina

Nominator(s): Brandmeister t 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am nominating this for featured article because the article underwent a major work since its creation, becoming a GA. It was copyedited by two editors, while I managed to obtain additional scanned references from Russia. The article ultimately received high rankings on the article feedback tool and now fills the undercoverage gap in the English-language sources about her. I think no major omission was made. Brandmeister t 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak OpposeSupport now that changes have been made. Her early life and the section "Character and Personality" are a bit too intimate in detail, but otherwise the article is fairly good.

• Perhaps a Russian pronunciation guide for her name should be included?
• "Roza was above average in height, with light brown hair and blue eyes, and spoke in a drawling Northern Russian dialect." As far as I know, a person's appearance does not need to be described (even if their photo is black-and-white). Her dialect may be worth mentioning, but there's no need to include "drawling".
• "Shanina graduated from college in the 1941–42 academic year, obtaining her certificate." Are we calling her "Roza" as above or "Shanina"? Be consistent. I'm not very familiar with Soviet academic terminology, but I would prefer the word "diploma" here unless "certificate" is the proper translation. And finally, "Shanina graduated from college in the 1941-42 academic year and obtained her certificate/diploma" avoids any participial phrase.
• "At that time the Soviet Union had been deploying numerous female snipers, because they were small in stature and had flexible limbs, as well as being both patient and cunning." The last part of this sentence doesn't seem quite right; perhaps it would be better as "and it was believed that they were both patient and cunning".
• "The other girls, concerned, ran up saying, 'That was a fascist you finished off!'" I'm assuming that the Soviet Union was sending women, and not mere girls, into World War II.
• "In May 1944, Shanina became credited with 17 confirmed enemy kills,[13] and in the second half of May was praised as a precise and brave soldier." I would rewrite this as "By May 1944, Shanina was credited with 17 confirmed enemy kills, and was soon praised as a precise and brave soldier."
• "Shanina loved writing and used to send letters to her home village and to the other girls in Arkhangelsk." "Used to" is rather informal; better is "would often". And once again, it's hard to believe that mere girls would be subjected to the horrors of war, though in this case I would replace "other girls" with "her friends".
• A citation should be given for the second paragraph in the "Diary" section.
• "Three of Shanina's brothers (Mikhail, Fyodor and Sergey) died in the war. Mikhail died during the Siege of Leningrad in 1941, while Fyodor was killed the same year during the Battle of Crimea." Why mention all of this after describing Shanina's personal life, at the end of the whole article? Indeed, are the fates of her brothers relevant to the article? I do not believe they are unless her mourning over them is noteworthy.

All in all this is a very readable and informative article, but it could still use some fine-tuning. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost all fixed, thanks. I decided to leave her appearance as there's no color photography of her of the time to my knowledge. As for diploma, the original word in the ref is "аттестат", which is closer to "certificate" than "diploma" IMO (I'm not sure that the document looked like diploma). As soon as I get more familiar with IPA, I'll add it. Brandmeister t 14:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The lede should describe her death, given that it comprises a significant part of the article, and happened under exceptional circumstances. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Brandmeister t 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. But I wish you luck with this nevertheless. Roza was obviously a remarkable woman, and she deserves to be remembered. Unfortunately though this article needs a lot of work on the prose to meet the FA criteria. Maybe a MilHist A-class review would be a good place to start? I'll give just a few examples of problems anyway:

• "There Shanina lived with her aunt Agnia Borisova. On Saturdays Shanina went to the village to take care of her ill aunt." Is this a different aunt?
• "Roza together with one friend in grades five through seven had to walk 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) to Bereznik ...". I don't understand what "one friend in grades five through seven" means in this context.
• "... to the rail station and rode to Arkhangelsk to study in the college there". You don't study in a college, you study at a college.
• "Shanina departed almost without money or possessions." What does that mean? With very little money and almost no possessions?
• "Shanina received little from home ...". Little what from home? Financial support?
• "At that time the Soviet Union had been deploying numerous female snipers, because they were small in stature ...". How do we reconcile this with having been told earlier that she was "above average in height"?
• "For her actions in the 1944 battle for the village Kozyi Gory ...". Should that be "for the village of Kozyi Gory"?
• "Shanina with a sniper badge on the right chest." As opposed to the wrong chest? "Her right chest" would be better.
• "In the diary Shanina noted in particular ...". Whose diary? Hers?
• "Shortly before her death, Shanina was made eligible for her third Order of Glory." How is someone "made" eligible, as opposed to becoming eligible?
• "... which asked Shanina's contemporaries to write what they know about her." The tenses don't match;. should be "to write what they knew about her".
• "In 1964–65 a renewed interest in Shanina sparked in the Soviet press ...". Why?
• "... and most of all, valued courage and absence of egoism in people". The word is "egotism".

Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

All fixed or paraphrased. The article was previously copyedited in the Guild of Copy Editors, but I'm ready to address other problems if they are. Brandmeister t 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest that you ask for your money back from the GoCE in that case, as there are still lots of problems. A few more examples:

• "Shanina died during the East Prussian Offensive while shielding the wounded commander of the artillery unit." Why "the" rather than "her" artillery unit? Was there only one involved in the East Prussian Offensive?
• "There Shanina lived with her ill aunt Agnia Borisova. On Saturdays Shanina went to the village to take care of Borisova." That still doesn't make sense. If she lived with her aunt then she must already have been in the village. Or did she board at the school during the week?
• "Shanina departed almost without money and possessions." Still hasn't been fixed.
• "... Roza sometimes returned from her compatriots of Ustyansky District to her college dormitory at 2–3 am". "Compatriots of" is very unidiomatic.
• "Shanina graduated from college in the 1941–42 academic year, obtaining her certificate." Her certificate of what? Her graduation certificate? If so, then it's sufficient to tell us that she graduated from college.
• "At that time the Soviet Union had been deploying numerous female snipers ...". "Had been" implies that they no longer were, and thus is incompatible with "at that time".
• "... while still living in the dormitory." What dormitory? Last we heard she'd been offered a free apartment.

Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I just don't know whether it was her artillery unit, so changed to "an". "...while still living in the dormitory" has been left because she would probably live in the kindergarten's apartment only temporarily while working. Brandmeister t 21:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, I don't speak Russian. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
• Be consistent in whether months are abbreviated or not
• FN 16: formatting
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for books
• Compare formatting of FNs 17 and 18
• Who publishes this source? This one? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The first source is published by the Russian state TV and radio broadcasting company Pomorie, the second is the webportal of Arkhangelsk Oblast (Ustyany District in particular). I've removed the last ref as it's user-generated. Brandmeister t 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd take another look at the page; I wasn't careful enough last time.

• "Before moving to a dormitory..." In what academic institution/boardinghouse?
• The sentences in the article, and in particular second paragraph of her early life are all very short and choppy; you should join a few together with semicolons, commas, and transitions.
• Should the Diary section be so intrusive, in the middle of her two tours of duty? It might be better to place it at the end of the section.
• "Diarial" is indeed a word according to TheFreeDictionary.com, but it may confuse readers. As a caption for the image, I would prefer "one of Shanina's notebooks".
• Shanina cannot have "a sniper badge on her right chest" as per the caption of the image in the East Prussia section. If so, she must have two chest. Better is "on the right side of her chest" or simply "on her chest". Or you could just avoid all mentions of her chest altogether and use "Shanina with a sniper badge." Come to think of it, what was that badge and what was its significance? Is it a Soviet or Allied military award that should be mentioned? Is it one of her awards of honour and glory?
• For which counter-offensive did she receive the Medal for Courage?
• "Following the East Prussian Offensive, the Germans tried to strengthen every location." I would heartily commend Germany for attempting to fortify the entire universe, which is what "every location" actually means, but I assume "fortify all of their strongholds" was intended.
• "Its title refers to the Shanina's words..." I understand the difficulty with using articles in English, but they are not used before proper names unless an entire family is being described. So drop "the".
• "'I have clearly remembered the mother's eyes. They weren't teary anymore." That first sentence seems like a mistranslation, not that I speak Russian or can even access the original text.
• Should "Oy tumany moi, rastumany" be romanized? After all, its translation is given immediately, it is a genuine Russian title, and the article is understandable without it (unlike her name; Ша́нина would turn away a lot of readers).

The article is still excellent; I won't retract my support. Best of luck, Interchangeable|talk to me 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Largely fixed. I decided to leave the Diary section where it is for chronological concerns to maintain smoother text flow. The ref doesn't specify which counter-offensive. What's wrong with "I have clearly remembered the mother's eyes" and how do you propose to tune it? The song's Romanized title was retained for encyclopedical purposes since the translation may vary. Brandmeister t 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not make sense. The present perfect tense, which is used, means that the action was completed soon before the time of speaking or writing. I assume that this is what is meant: "I clearly remember her mother's eyes." (This describes the action in the present; Shanin is talking about the present. "They weren't teary at all..." ("They weren't teary anymore" means that they were teary at some point in the past, but this is no longer the case; this is obviously a fallacy.) Interchangeable|talk to me 19:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed to past simple. The mother already lost some sons before Shanina's death, so I translated that another sentence the way it is. Brandmeister t 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. Unfortunately it seems your copy editor might not have been as thorough as needed. This really does need to be looked at closely by another copy editor. As it stands, there are too many points where the English is not quite at the natural, native-speaker level. The content is very comprehensive, the structure is strong and the topic is very interesting, but I can't support without the prose receiving some further attention. Please do renominate this after it's been copy edited again. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sacrifice (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 13:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the second nomination for this article. I nominated it long ago in 2009 when I was still a beginner at expansions. Since I've expanded around 50+ articles being mainly title lists and PPVs along with several title belts. Improved my skills a bit by expanding Turning Point (2008) with a different format. Turning Point recently became an FA thankfully, so I've redone Sacrifice to match its format. I started from the ground up completely. I don't believe there is anything left from the original version. I believe its improved an extreme amount. Perfect example is the change in length of the Storylines section. I added a larger Reception section, a Production section, and an On-air employees/Miscellaneous section. An issue with past nominations is the sources. I'll place below why each source is reliable and in the context they are used. I ask if you review this article and have one up for nomination as well that you leave the link as I'm willing to review in return.--WillC 13:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

References

• Pro Wrestling History: Used once, a site which gathers its information via magazines, books, news reports, promotions, etc. Its used to cover one issue and one issue only that being the attendance of the event. TNA hosts events at the Impact Wrestling Zone, formally known as the "TNA Impact! Zone". Due to holding so many events at the arena, attendance figures are no longer posted since the attendance has become common knowledge unless a show is held elsewhere. As such this site is used to only cover this non-controversial fact since the Impact Zone is a soundstage.
• Total Nonstop Action Wrestling: The company holding the event, I.E. a primary reference.
• WrestleView: A long standing wrestling news site which has been covered by the SLAM! Sports: Wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer. Reports information released by TNA as well as by Pro Wrestling Torch, Wrestling Observer, Slam Sports, and other wrestling and non-wrestling publications. Staff go through a training and background program.
• Canadian Online Explorer: Should speak for itself.
• Pro Wrestling Torch: See here, its a longstanding newsletter turned website connected to the industry in a variety of ways. The link should tell the blunt of it all. It was created by Wade Keller.
• Figure Four Weekly and Wrestling Observer: Merged site of semi-wrestler Bryan Alvarez and longtime wrestling and MMA journalist Dave Meltzer, who has been interviewed and covered by Slam Sports, mentioned by wrestlers such as Bret Hart in his bio, featured in documentaries like Beyond the Mat, etc.
• For Your Entertainment: Used to cover DVD release date.
• About: Used for event results, owned by The New York Times I believe.

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wrestlinglover. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Not that happy with the condition of the prose. Some issues are listed below; please consider getting some copy-editing help, as I'm sure this isn't a comprehensive list.

I'd assume it would have a bit to fix. Hopefully my fixes and replies help put the issues to rest.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "It was the fourth under the Sacrifice chronology and fifth event in the 2008 TNA PPV schedule." Move "event" to before "fourth"?
  • Well its like that due to an issue in the TP review, where the word "event" was used to a large extent. It matches the format used there. Willing to do it as long as it doesn't seem like the article becomes repetitive.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Add "were" to "two of which for championships".
  • Same as above, "were" comes directly after that statement, so it was removed to be direct in an effort to avoid being repetitive.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• "25,000 was the reported figure of purchasers for the event by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter." I don't like seeing numbers starting sentences, but the whole sentence is structured oddly. How about this plainer version: "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported that 25,000 (people, households, whatever the appropriate term is) purchased the PPV telecast of the event."?
  • Done--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• "the same as the 2007 event's ranking also by Sokol." The "also" is redundant and interferes with the flow of the sentence. Would be best to remove it. Same issue exists in the body.
  • I disagree, but removed.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Background: "TNA released a poster to promote the show sometimes prior...". "sometimes" → "some time"?
  • Wow, you are the first to catch that after 20 PPVs. Fixed.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• What is meant to be citing the first paragraph of the Storylines section?
  • Added ref. A bit of a debate whether it needs to be cited or not. Appears since you mentioned you think it should, so just went ahead and added it.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Remove the period after "on the April 17 episode of Impact!"
  • Actually needed since stylization of Impact is "Impact!".--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Same after "on the April 24 episode of Impact!" and "on the May 1 episode of Impact!" Also a couple of these in the Aftermath section.
  • See above.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Main event matches: "and ODB. ODB...". Try not to have a repetition like this from one sentence to the next.
  • Fixed--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reception: "which was overall 'interesting'". Feels like it would make more sense if "overall" was put after the quote.
  • Done--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Now there's a space after "overall" that needs to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• "The TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal and The Latin American Xchange versus Kip James and Matt Morgan bout was given his lowest of 6 out of 10." "was" → "were". There are two bouts being referred to, not one.
  • Done--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Missing word in "while the Tournament Final 2 and a half stars out of 5." Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not exactly, as that was my intention but added "received" to help.--WillC 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Still think this needs outside copy-editing help. I know it's probably hard to find people willing to work on wrestling articles, but I feel it's necessary to make the effort in this case. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll try to find someone.--WillC 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've started a copyedit of the article, at first glace it looks like the prose could be tightened a bit. A couple questions though:
• I'm not too sure if Miscellaneous is a good subsection title.
  • It was originally "On-air employees" but has grown to include more information than just the employees, so I changed it to "Other" then to "Miscellaneous" as it seems more appropriate for a Featured Article, as it is with Turning Point.--WillC 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I can't think of a better title either. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• The sentence about its DVD release is in the Reception section, I'm not sure if that's a good place for it (though I don't have any better ideas). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, its pretty much the only place besides "Aftermath".--WillC 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I don't think that would work much better. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• References 7 and 22 (as of this revision) don't seem to mention Sacrifice, so I think using them to compare Sacrifice to other events may be original research. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 7 is covering TNA's previous PPV Lockdown, so its used in the background as well as the Reception. 22 is to compare another industrial event at the time to give a better idea of how well Sacrifice was received. This is similar to movie series articles which compare ratings, revenue, etc with each installment.--WillC 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I see what you're going for. Are there any sources that directly compare Sacrifice's numbers to other events though? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Not that I know of currently. PWTorch releases articles at the end of the year about the events of the year, but not really about reception, moreso about storylines, etc.--WillC 06:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Working my way through, some tightening and copyediting, but nothing too egregious, really. I found this sentence a bit difficult to parse (and hence copyedit) though: "A storyline connected this match involved Cage and Rhino having received concussions from the attack by Booker T after their previous match." Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Could be changed to "Prior to the contest, TNA commentator announced Cage and Rhino had received concussions due to the earlier attack by Booker T, in the storyline." It worked into the match and was entirely scripted.--WillC 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Later, Styles held Homicide in a small package pin attempt until Salinas distracted the referee." Should there be a hyphen here? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope, not from my view.--WillC 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• I wouldn't think that phrases such as "bashing Kip in the face" or "Laveaux's head was legitimately busted open" were encyclopedic language, is this a convention of the wrestling wikiproject? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well "bashing" can be changed to "hitting", but I've used bashing in several articles. The second one is because in wrestling a thing called blading happens. Its where a wrestler will take a bad fall or get attacked by an object. Something that logically would cause a person to bleed. They would pull out a hidden razor blade from their wrist tape or somewhere. Cut their forehead a few times to draw blood without the crowd or anyone seeing this taking place. Laveaux did not blade, instead she was legitimately bleeding due to the match environment.--WillC 02:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, if no one else objects, I guess "bashing" is fine. My issue was more with "busted open", maybe "cut open"? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, sounds good. "busted open" is usually a wrestling term, its more so promotional use.--WillC 06:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Funny, I saw this thread just a few minutes after I read your response. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Odd--WillC 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, I finished my copyedit--I think the prose is in decent shape at this point, probably within striking distance of 1a. These are my changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the copyedit.--WillC 06:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm leaning support at this point, but I'd like someone else to review the prose (since it's tough for me to judge my own copyedit). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Thats up to you, I'm sure someone else will review it eventually. Giants will probably take another look at it soon.--WillC 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

St Cuthbert Gospel

Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is "the earliest surviving intact European book and one of the world’s most significant books", according to the British Library, who are just about to buy it for £9m ($14M), having had it on loan and on display for over 30 years. In particular it is the oldest European binding still in place. Its 1300 years of history is unusually well-recorded, and long and interesting, sometimes verging on the wierd, and the book has an unusually large amount of scholarship on it. I have had some help from the BL in doing the article. It's not a Wiki-cup entry. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Redtigerxyz

• Images
  • File:St Cuthbert Gospel - f.1.jpg: Is tagging with PD-art right? Certainly not a piece of art

You don't think calligraphy is art? I wouldn't agree, nor would the various authorities cited, for example in the text section. We have hundreds or thousands of images of calligraphy using art tags. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As per Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_.22old.22_book_pages_use_PD-art.3F, you need to crop it as it contains 3D elements and PD-art can be used for only 2D work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It could use the same tag as the front cover one; that Commons link is dead btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected Link. Missed a commons. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg: Irreplaceable?? File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg may serve the purpose.

Hardly - it's very fuzzy and in black and white, and you can't see the detail discussed, nor of course the colour. I hope the BL will fully release the pic on a CC license in due course - they are certainly keen for us to use it. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Let someone else too take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this image is necessary and irreplaceable because it shows the coloring and size of the book. The Britannica shows a book that could be any color and any size, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• • File:StonyhurstGospelText.jpg is missing source.

Hmm I didn't upload this, & it's a scan from some book, but which will be hard to say. I have emailed the original uploader, though he is no longer active on WP. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He's pretty sure it's Brown 1967, which reproduces all pages & he had a scan of. I've read most of the literature & never seen it elsewhere. I'll add to file. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Prose
  • "Cuthbert's death in 687" in lead. The lead just said 2 lines ago about the date 687. Repetition.

Done Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• • "It presumably remained in the coffin through its travels after 875, forced by Viking invasions, and was found inside and removed in 1104 when the burial, by then in Durham Cathedral, was once again moved within the building." Confused??? Split

Split & rewritten Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• • " Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey,.." and "the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow": IMO, one term can be used throughout.

Then the 2nd one becomes "It was written at the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey during the abbacy of Ceolfrith" where the repetition of "abbey/abbacy" is clunky. I think it's probably no bad thing to make clear that abbeys are monasteries, which perhaps one can't expect all readers to be sure of. All subsequent mentions just say "Monkwearmouth-Jarrow". Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK
  • Morgan Library, Book of Kells linked twice in 1 section

Done; don't think there are more like that. A few links a long way apart are deliberately repeated, which is ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon_cross" is linked twice in Binding. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Binding: "Although the binding ...." got lost in middle. Split

Done Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Who is Roger Powell? Explain with short summary why his views are notable

He gets a pretty full write-up later, at the end of the history, & has a linked biography, which mentions his work on this. I've added "the bookbinder" here. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• " It has been suggested that in the St Cuthbert Gospel ... caution by other scholars"

Both are in the note, which is enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, attribution is needed in text. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be too long by the time you have both sides. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Added. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, "Boisil's book" and "Appeal" should be merged into history.

I'll think about that. Boisil is a bit awkward because really he is something of a red herring, but his missing book is the alternative that may be referred to in various sources, if this one is not meant. I thought it was too messy to go into the history, which is pretty long anyway. I would have expected, and may yet get, suggestions to split up the big sections rather than do further merges. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, "Appeal" now merged. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Boisil section also merged to "History", with a little clarification added. Works well actually. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I could not find details like number of pages and their conservation status. I have not read the article thoroughly and may have missed it. But if they exist, such details should be close to the "Binding" section, which also deals with the description of the gospel book.

They are both there. The number of pages is in the lead & the rest in the "Text" section, which is where the text is described. The "Binding" section only covers the binding, and is long enough already. The current condition is covered in the "Binding" section and at the end of the "History", which seems appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting merging, but just that the sections "Binding" and "Text" are in sequence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The book is not really important as a text, but the binding is very important. I've put the sections in the sequence that I think reflects their significance. In fact both the number of pages & the overall condition (very good) are in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The text is a very good and careful copy" Says who??? This is a view, not a fact

Says Brown, and also other experts, as referenced. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So it is an universal view (no expert disagrees), the no attribution is needed in text. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The book begins with 19 lines on a page, but at f42 changes to 20 lines per page" f42 seems to be a page. How are the pages numbered?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As is usual with manuscripts, the numbering is by folios, denoted by "f" then Recto and verso, which is linked in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spelt out folio here, and linked it again. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the lede by Aa77zz

• The sentence beginning "Although it was long regarded as Cuthbert's personal copy of the Gospel..." is too long for the lead and should be split. Done Jb
• Why is the citation to Skemer required in the lede? Removed Jb
• "one of the smallest surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts." - there is ambiguity here as 'Anglo-Saxon' can be the language (See footnote 1 at Old English). Perhaps "smallest surviving manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon period."

I think this is ok. There is a link to Anglo-Saxons, & I've added "in Latin" just after. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• The lede contains "a gift from Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey, where it was written," and "It was written at the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow during the abbacy". I'm not very sure about this but would it be better to omit the first "where it was written"?

Second sentence merged/removed. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support by Truthkeeper88 - first, lovely article, very important, and nicely done. I think the "Binding" section is too stuffed - have you considered separating into subsections? I haven't read it closely but am thinking something along the lines, maybe, of design and color, construction, bla bla. Will get back to it later. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I've thought of that & it may well be best. After an introductory section, one the decoration of the covers - or one on the front, one on the back - then one on the construction. I'd have to rearrange a bit. I'll ponder further. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done a simple one. I may tinker further, but I think it's an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, easier to read now. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding very little to nit-pick - only two comments below:

• This sentence lost me: "The lines forming the interlace patterns are coloured in the dark blue/black and the bright yellow, but differently, as the yellow in the lower panel colours the left half of the design, but the upper panel begins at the (deviant) left in the dark colour, then switches to yellow once the pattern changes to that used for the rest of the panels, continuing in yellow until the central point, then changing to the dark colour for the right hand side of the design." > Maybe split or something?

Split into 3, but it needs to be read in conjunction with photo (in colour). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Unsupported" > from my reading of it, it refers to the spine. I.e the manner in which the boards & pages were attached, but I'm thinking I might be wrong. I'm a slightly confused here. Do the horizontal cords across the spine attach the boards to the spine, and is the coptic stitching used to attach the leaves together? If so, I'm not sure that's made clear.

Pretty much. Coptic stitching uses small threads both to attach the leaves together and to attach them to the boards. Normal binding uses thread for the former and thicker cord for the latter, with the thread knotted onto the cord. I've added a sentence, but I don't think stitching is ever easy to understand in words, for non-sewers, and we don't seem to have really helpful photos. Somewhere there'll be a video which it might be worth linking to. I may restructure the whole thing later. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejigged a bit; I hope clearer. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clearer. I think I may have misread as well. It's an interesting technique. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved to support but would like to read it again, so might come back with another comment or two, but essentially, as far as I'm concerned this meets the criteria. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: This is an outstanding, scholarly piece of work. For once, I am fairly familiar with the period and topic so I can vouch for comprehensiveness and the sourcing looks good. I've quite a list of nit-picks, with which you are free to argue, but nothing major. I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• It may be worth saying in the lead how it became known as the Stonyhurst Gospel. - I would if it were the main name now, but as it is I'm not sure this is needed. I'll think. Jb - Now added Jb
• One or two arguable instances in the lead of slight POV phrasing: "finely decorated leather binding", "outstanding condition". But not a big deal if you disagree.

Really I think these are ok, and supported by the sources. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "where it was written": Suggests authorship. Created? Copied? - "scribed" seems a bit poncey to me, and this does allow for the possibility, mentioned later on, that the binding was in fact added at Lindisafarne. "Copied" is possible. Jb
• "It presumably remained in the coffin through its long travels after 875": Not too sure about presumably which suggests editorial judgement. Maybe "probably" or similar? - I'd rather stick with "presumably", which better reflects the arguments for this, which all sources agree with but rests on a number of presumptions, as to when and why the book might have been in the coffin since 698, and to it not being added on any of the numerous other occasions the coffin was probably opened, sometimes to pop other stuff in, as in 930 (see the article on the coffin). All we can be pretty sure of is that it was there in 1104, in pretty good condition. Jb
• "when the burial was once again moved within the cathedral": I don't think you can really move a burial.

I think you can - see a google search. An alternative would be "shrine", which it certainly was by then, but that is less clear. There seem to have been 3 layers of coffin by this stage, so I don't just want to say "coffin". Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "and important visitors were able to wear the book in a leather bag around their necks": Maybe include why they might do so, or it looks a little odd until you read the whole article

- It's "It was then kept there with other relics, and important visitors ..." - doesn't that cover it for the lead? Jb

I'm not sure that this really covers why they would feel the need to wear it. That would be the obvious question, and maybe a mention of the "charm" aspect is not too much for the lead? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It being worn was nothing to do with it being a charm or amulet, but to do with being regarded as a relic of Cuthbert. I'm not sure how to explain that quickly in the lead, and maybe more needs to be explained lower down. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave this one to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

More now added on this, from a new source, in the "context" section. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "It is now on long-term loan to the British Library, catalogued as Loan 74" It is worth adding to the lead who owns it now. (Or who owned it if the library succeed in buying it) - Added. I think ok for now; it will all need rewriting in 5 weeks or so, when the number changes etc. Jb
• Just a thought: Is it absolutely certain that the binding is original, and not a (very) early addition? - Pretty much; that possibility is not even discussed by any of the sources, except that the MS might have been delivered unbound from M-Jarrow & bound at Lindifarne (as mentioned). Both the binding technique and the decoration fit better, as far as can be told, with the date of the text than later. Jb
• "which should be understood as representing a vine": Slightly cumbersome. Why not just "which represents a vine"?

- I'd prefer to be tentative; in fact Brown I think entirely avoids mentioning "vine", though Mynors (in Battiscombe) and Powell use it without demur. Jb

I'm fine with tentativeness (if that is a word!), but "should be understood as" is fairly clunky prose and has a hint of editorialising. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "It has been suggested that in the St Cuthbert Gospel this design represents Christ (as the central bud) and the Four Evangelists as the grapes": Who has suggested? - Van Regemorter, as the note says. Jb - She's now added to the text Jb
• I thought that external links were not allowed in the main text, but there is a link to the bible reference. - They are one of the types allowed. Jb
• "The combination of different types of ornament within a panelled framework is highly typical of Nothumbrian art, above all the Lindisfarne Gospels.": I'm not sure how this relates to the plant motif discussed in the rest of the paragraph. Though it's possible I'm being dim.

The previous two sentences discuss the combination of classically-inspired plant motifs with interlace, as on the cover, in crosses and the portable altar, & this continues that, bringing in the framed compartments. The combination of classical/Mediterranean and Germanic/Celtic decorative elements together is the great characteristic of Insular art, and is what makes it a crucial forerunner of and influence on later medieval art. This is just touching on a huge subject, but maybe I need to add a little. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'll leave this one to you as I've just got the point (yes, I was being dim) but maybe a little more would make it clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The stitching of the pages uses "Coptic sewing", "flexible unsupported sewing (produced by two needles and thread looping round one another in a figure-of-eight sewing pattern)"" Requires In-text attribution.

- I've clarified which Brown is quoted. If you mean the author should be mentioned in the text, I really can't see why, as this is merely a usefully snappy & simple phrasing of a standard piece of knowledge many of the other sources take longer to say, describing "kettle stitches" and the like. Touched this passage up a little. Jb

Personally, I've no great issue with this, but it is part of MoS and should be done in FAs: see MOS:Quote. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", but none of these are full sentences. This goes for the others below. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the closest resemblance is to an even smaller Irish pocket gospels from some fifty years later": Although you are almost certainly right, the clash of "an" with "gospels" jars slightly for the reader. - Yes; went to "gospel book" Jb
• Not sure I see the need to discuss "supported" binding at such length, when this binding was "unsupported".

- The easiest way to explain what "unsupported" means is by explaining what "supported" means, and in the process describing how almost all Western books from shortly after this were probably made with supported bindings, hence the significance of it being unsupported. Or so it seems to me. Jb

Happy to go with your view on this one, unless others see it as a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The boards of the covers are now thought to be birch, not limewood as once though": Repetition of thought. Also, who is thinking? Historians? Scientists? Art historians? - gone to "... birch, rather than limewood as previously assumed..." Jb
• ""imitate very closely the best Italian manuscripts of about the sixth century"" Attribution?

- er, the reference immediately after Jb

As above, MOS:Quote#Attribution, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "which has always been greatly admired": By historians? Contemporaries? Art critics? (This is addressed in a later section, but should be explained here)

All of those, and also scholars of biblical texts (with paleographers, the only people who actually read such books right through, and appreciate their legibility), and calligraphers. Maybe if I just add "for their calligraphy"? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "who may not all have developed at the same pace": Developed in what sense?

- In terms of changes in the style, broken down into changes to the formation of individual letters and other aspects; very technical stuff we don't want to go into here I think - this is paleography-lite, though as a specialist Brown is as happy as a pig in mud. Jb

Could your answer here be incorporated in the text; i.e. "developed their style"? Not a big issue if you don't like it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Should also be clearer from the rewrite covered below. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of Dating, in particular with reference to the Codex Amiatinus, does not seem directly relevant. Why do we need such detail about a different work. It is not immediately obvious.

Rewritten, which I hope clarifies that the Codex Amiatinus provides pretty much the only firm date in the sequence, at 716, so underpinning all the paleological argument for dating. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "by coincidence now bound up with the famous Utrecht Psalter" The general reader will not think it is famous. Also, why does this "coincidence" need to be pointed out? And is the "coincidence" relevant to the article, as the Psalter has not been mentioned until this point?

It does at least save having to identify the MS by more cumbersome means, and then having people who check think - "oh, he's made a mistake, that's the Utrecht Psalter"! I don't think there is anything wrong with telling people who don't know it is famous that it is - if everybody could be expected to know that there would be no point & it would just be bathetic, like "famous Taj Mahal". It clearly is famous as manuscripts go. It is essentially a coincidence, though an interesting one in various ways, showing the relatively small number of very early manuscripts, and the efforts made to preserve them from an early date, not that I've checked if we know when they were first united, which we probably don't - the current binding was added by Cotton. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to go with your opinion here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Cuthbert was an Anglo-Saxon, perhaps of a noble family, born in the Kingdom of Northumbria in the mid-630s, some ten years after the conversion of King Oswald to Christianity in 627, which was slowly followed by the rest of his people": The last clause, "which was slowly followed by the rest of his people" looks like it refers to Cuthbert, but must refer to the conversion. Perhaps this could be rephrased?

I don't really see how "which was" could refer to Cuthbert. I've added "that of" after "followed by" - does that help? Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "when his remains were moved to behind the altar to reflect his recognition, in the days before a formal process of canonization, as a saint": Maybe just "moved behind"? - Hmm, that makes it sound as if they were tidying him away, somehow, when the reverse was the case. Jb
• "He has been described as "perhaps the most popular saint in England prior to the death of Thomas Becket in 1170."" Who described him?

- well Marner, as cited, but other sources could be. I don't like attributing what are fairly standard assertions in the text; then people want you to add who they are and why we should credit their statement. Jb

That damned MOS:Quote#Attribution again, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "No doubt these and other relics were reverently packaged in cloth and labelled, as more recent relics are.": Is this in the cited source? It looks a little like editorial voice, so a citation for this sentence may be helpful.

I think this is ok. There is no actual record, apart from the much later Symeon of Durham, of the arrangements in 875, but Reginald's account of the 1104 opening mentions wrappers or wrappings, partly decayed, for the other relics, and the anonymous account mentions a linen sack apparently containing all the non-Cuthbert bones, which they had no difficulty telling apart, so presumably they were individually packaged. Cuthbert himself was swathed in layers and layers of cloth, on which there is great detail in Battiscombe, from 1104, 1827 and 1899, though the thinner cloths were mostly disintegrated by the 19th century, and no remains seem to have been kept. Some of the heavier Byzantine silks still survive at Durham. I wanted to avoid the impression that they had a box full of loose bones, which they certainly did not. They also took two later bishops with them, who were still there in 1104, when according to Reginald all the bones except Oswald's head was removed. Maybe I should just remove the "no doubt". Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"No doubt" cut. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the predecessor of the present great Durham Cathedral": Is "great" necessary here?

- I don't think this is unduly peacocky; can be referenced if needed. Jb

To be honest, I think it could be taken out as it is a little peacocky, and suggests an editorial comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed, somewhat grudgingly. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• ""written in a modest book-hand apparently of the later twelfth century"" Attribution?

- Brown, per the reference 8 words later. Jb

MOS:Quote#Attribution again, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Milner thought that "the binding seems to be of the time of Queen Elizabeth"!" I'm not sure the exclamation mark is encyclopaedic.

It is rather a jaw-dropper, and I wanted to convey that. I think a review of Battiscombe called it "astonishingly amateurish" or something - it's the interlace that is really un-Elizabethan. I've added a bit to balance it, as on the text his account was pretty good for the period. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not personally convinced that there should be an exclamation mark, no matter how ludicrous the opinion was! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "This seems to have been done hastily, as most left offsets on the opposite page from the pages being closed before the ink was dry.": This reads a little clumsily; I initially read it as "left offsets" meaning opposite of "right", rather than "leaving". Also, repetition of pages.

- Gone to "...as most left offset marks on the opposite pages from the book being closed before the ink was dry." Jb

Sounds good, but I can't see this in the text! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No indeed, I forgot to save it. Done now - I hope there was nothing else in that edit. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "This seems to indicate that the book was used at least once as the gospel book for a Mass for the Dead, perhaps on the occasion of Cuthbert's elevation in 698." Is this cited? The next ref refers to a specific page, which makes this seem to be slightly OR. - This is strictly following Brown; two pages are cited in fact, though I don't see why more than one would needed to say it. Jb
• The description in the text of the illustration of Folio 27r may be better placed in the caption of the image. - That would make a very long caption, & the picture itself may be "threatened" - see above. The point is not just incidental as it bears on the possibility that it was used for the mass at his elevation in 698. Jb
• The section on "Boisil's book": Is this making the point that this book has been confused with the Cuthbert Gospel? I'm not too sure I see the point of including this here otherwise. - This section has been merged to "History - Durham" and I hope clarified, while you were writing these. Boisil's book has been something of a red herring in the understanding of the St C Gospel, ever since Flambard in 1104, but Brown seems finally to have eliminated it. Jb
• "and all the examples known to Brown were of John": Presumably Brown the historian mentioned earlier, but maybe make it explicit. - "Julian" added Jb

--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these - working through them. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where I've struck, my comment has either been addressed or I am happy with the explanation/reasoning. However, the attribution points are about MoS. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Provisional support: I am happy to support this excellent article as it stands as it almost certainly meets the criteria. I am keeping the support provisional for now simply so that others can chip in. My remaining concerns over one or two phrasing points, and over attribution of quotes in the text are not enough to prevent my full support, but I would like to see what others think first. Also, as I do know something of this period and the type of analysis etc covered here, I would like a few other eyes to make sure that the article is comprehensible and not over-detailed. Once there have been a few other reviews, I will switch to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As above, the MOS says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", but none of these are full sentences. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jones and Michell or Mitchell? - Well spotted; it's Michell. Done Jb
• Check alphabetization of References - Done Jb
• Ranges should consistently use endashes - Run a tool, should be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how web sources are notated - done; convenience links to google books not access-dated. Jb
• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated - done, insofar as the works are equivalent Jb
• No citations to Brown 2003 - Coming Jb - Now there Jb
• Why the doubled dates in the Brown reference entries? - The first are to disambiguate between three Brown books, the second to be consistent with other refs. Jb
• Be consistent about whether locations are provided for books, and give publisher consistently - Done; a couple of cities left for very obscure publishers in Brussels & Dublin. "Town House Dublin" is the publisher's name, so comma removed. Now it's no longer all done on the kitchen table they seem to use "TownHouse Dublin", but my book has the three words. I've left "Brussels" for "Bibliotheca Wittockiana" as they are pretty obscure, and mainly a museum, though unlike Town House they are easy to find with google. Jb
• be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced. - Done Jb

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All done, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fellows v. Blacksmith

Nominator(s): Savidan 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very good article about an obscure, yet important case. Decided the day before Dred Scott, it represents the first Native American land rights victory in the U.S. Supreme Court (possibly the first judgment in favor of a Native American from that court in any area of law). It has been a good article for over a year. The first nomination resulted in substantial improvement to the article, although no reviewers ended up supporting or opposing the article. Savidan 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Preliminary comments We must surely have some images of Native Americans of about the right sort at about the right time, as well or instead of all those be-whiskered lawyers? Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • An image of Ely Parker is already included. I am somewhat open to the inclusion of others, with this caveat: Not just any Native American from the time period will do. Anyone other than a Seneca, and probably anyone other than a Tonawanda Seneca, would push the bounds of relevance. Savidan 06:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Frankly, this is pretty indigestible, even by the standards of law case articles. I think I would need a fair number of changes to make it more accessible by explaining the concepts before supporting. The first two sentences of the lead get the article off to a daunting start, and the lead does not contain any summary of the facts of the case, which it should, and which would give the lay reader something easier to hold on to. Many brief explanations in simpler terms should be added to the existing text, which gives the impression of covering the subject well, not that I'm in a position to judge.
  • I have reworked the intro to add the facts more prominently. I am willing to work further with you on this concern, but you will have to be more specific. I am absolutely open to using the simplest possible terms that can be used without sacrificing meaning. I am also possibly willing to add more context and explanation, as long as the flow of the article is not broken by discussing general topics. To use the example of the first sentence, of which you have complained, a reader who wants to know more about the Supreme Court of the United States or Native Americans in the United States generally will probably have to click those links. I am not willing to add explanation along the lines of: "The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, located in Washington, D.C." or "Native Americans are the descendants of the indigenous population of the United States prior to European colonization." Savidan 19:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have to be more specific, really. I could just walk away and leave it, which is what I probably will do. It is a pervasive problem, though the changes to the first para show you know what to do. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific. If you want me to understand and address your concern, you will have to be more specific. Savidan 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why is it always a Supreme Court "opinion" here? Isn't it a decision or judgment?
  • The opinion is the text written by the court. The decision or judgment is just the disposition, i.e. "judgment for the plaintiff" or "affirmed." Savidan 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is the talk of "Marshall Court" etc, with a link to the bio of the Chief Justice, normal? It would seem better to expand at least the first mentions.
  • If there were an article for Marshall Court, that would be better, but there is not. That section of his article is the best we can do now. Since this article is a case decided by the Taney Court, and there is already substantial summary of the Marshall Court's relevant decisions in the background sections (and a {main} link to Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court), I am hesitant to add more. If you can be more specific about what you would like to see, perhaps it can be done. Savidan 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh! Is there actually any reason not to say "the Supreme Court under Chief Justice whatever Marshall's name was"? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Only word economy. It's not that uncommon of an expression, much like "Obama Administration." See Warren Court or Roberts Court, for example. The fact that there is no a "Marshall Court" article really can be attributed the presentism bias of Wikipedia more than anything else, as it is probably the period of the Court most referred to in this manner. "Marshall Court" on Google Scholar. I'm fairly certain this expression is understandable to non-lawyers, as it is a common staple of general interest journalism about the Court. "Roberts Court" on Google News.Savidan 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on that, certainly outside the US. It's not implausible that there should be a "Marshall Court", given the various legal meanings of the word. The meaning wasn't immediately clear to me when first reading it. Too much concern for "word economy" may lie behind the main issue with this article. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Finnish parliamentary election, 2011

Nominator(s): Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because per a previous nomination the requests/suggestions are now fulfilled, criteria was fulfilled by nom (me) last time. Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't read the article yet, but at first glance dead links appear to be an issue. Also, the Financial times should be noted with a subscription required template. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How do yu check for deadlinks? and put subscription data in the template? Aparentl subscription=yes doesnt workLihaas (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the link to the link-checker, it is not showing them all now for some reason, not sure if it's working right. I use the {{subscription required}} template to mark subscriptions, just put in in right after the reference template. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okey, all done with tag on FinTimes and links. Just 1 issue left over the "agenda finland" source which i asked another finnish editor (who worked with me on the article). Guess ill wait for a few days to come up with that or else remove the passage?Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, I don't speak Finnish. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Typo on access date - "Retrived"
• Don't italicize publishers
• Be consistent in whether you use "Ministry of Justice of Finland" or just "Ministry of Justice"
• Who publishes this source?
• This link triggers my anti-virus software
• 404 error
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, italicization changes, etc

I can't evaluate reliability due to language issues, but formatting needs some cleaning up. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting it done. The agendafin worked for me. I use Norton.

Also just italicised the publishers because the other review said to do so...

What other formatting needs cleaning up other than the ones listed.

therwise seems all set?Lihaas (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Nominator(s): //Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I started an extensive re-write back in October (from this stub). The re-write got out of hand and the article ended up being a GA and an A-class article. It has had extensive copyedits for GA and A-class already (big thank you to Adamdaley, Piotrus, Demiurge1000, AustralianRupert and Vecrumba). During the previous (failed) FAC User:Nikkimaria raised some concerns about some of the pictures in the article and incompatibility of 1920s Polish copyright legislation and modern American laws. To avoid further problems I simply removed those pictures altogether. I believe the article is ready for FAC now. //Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments. Also, I don't believe that the images in question, dating to 1920, are copyrighted anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Archived on 26 February; was consent fom delegates given for this quick renomination? Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ueh, I feel more bureaucracy creeping in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No idea what are you talking about. There were not enough voters in the preceding FAC. If the idea behind coping with WP's backlog is to wait a couple of months between renominations which noone attends anyway, then feel free to take this attempt down. //Halibutt 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I suggest you read the the FAC page: "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 delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." This is not bureacracy "creeping in", it's been the rule for ages. You may well qualify for exemption, who knows? But you should try and work within the rules, and be a little less aggressive while you're about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The only issue raised was the pics. I removed the pics thus resolving the issue. If we have to wait for two weeks for this or that reason - fine with me. Not that I understood what would that give us. //Halibutt 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Replying on your talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. WP:Checklist will explain some of these. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Polish-Soviet War": dash per WP:DASH and per that article
• "north-east", "defences", etc. aren't American English, but the date format (August 13) seems to be.
• "in the area around": near
• "counter-offensive": counteroffensive (per Cambridge Dictionaries, for instance)
• "the battle was one of the key parts of what later became known as the Battle of Warsaw.": I don't know what that means.
• "Latinik, and part": Latinik and by part
• "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions": repetition. "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions"
• "modern engineering equipment, making crossing them difficult.": modern engineering equipment for the river crossings
• "This also inhibited": what inhibited?
• "lay in ruin": It's "lay in ruins" in AmEng
• "WWI": write it out. "First World War" is more commonly used in BritEng articles.
• "where Narew flows": where the Narew flows. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• "a line of World War I Russian and German trenches located west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction in 1915.": a line of World War I trenches west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction by Russians and Germans in 1915.
• "three Polish infantry divisions: 11th": ... the 11th
• "(Bug river – Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna-Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew-Vistula River).": (from the Bug River to Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna to Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew to the Vistula River).
• "newly-arrived": newly arrived
• "achieved ... to force rear echelons": achieved ... getting rear echelons
• "the front-line service": front-line service
• "that is to say soldiers": or soldiers
• I got down to Battle of Radzymin (1920)#Battle. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Freddie Mitchell

Nominator(s): Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that after working on this article for several months, it is now ready to be looked at as an FA. While I am currently competing in the WikiCup, this article will not be used for it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup judge note: the majority of this article was written in 2011, so it is not eligible in this year's competition. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The nominator has already noted that. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors will not review WikiCup FACs, so I was hoping to make certain these editors realize it is not one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – First off, glad to see a new face at FAC, as we can always use more of those. Here are my early impressions after reading part of the article. If I can find time, I'll try to come back for another look later.

• First off, the reliability of sourcing as a whole seems reasonable, but what makes Deadspin (ref 169) a reliable source? If I recall, it's a blog, which isn't generally reliable. Does the author have any special qualifications?
• "and he voiced his frustration on and off the field." From a technical standpoint, he only voiced frustration off the field. On it, the article only says he made gestures, which isn't voicing anything. If he yelled at Donovan McNabb at some point that would be different, but the article doesn't say that.
• The lead is best done with at least some facts from each of the sections in an article. At the moment, there's nothing from the personal life section. You should be able to glean at least a sentence from the section, which is of a reasonable size.
• Early years: Minor point, but I'd spell out RBI, as the FAC people like it when all of the abbreviations are defined.
• College career: As an FAC regular, I've seen sports article after sports article after sports article get called out for having too much jargon in it. Since I'm a sports fan, I often fail to detect issues myself. One that I am worried about here is whether the average (non-sports) reader will understand the concept of redshirting. Maybe adding something saying that he didn't play that year would help to clarify things.
• Redundancy here: "Starting in place of the injured Farmer for his first career start". We have "Starting" and "start"; try modifying it so there's one fewer of these.
• There's a massive paragraph describing his 2000 season that weighs in at 20 lines on my widescreen. This is really long and can surely be chopped in two so it doesn't look like a massive wall of text.
• What is the Fred Biletnikoff Award for? I'd expect it to be for best receiver in the country, but that's the type of fact that should be included so the reader doesn't have to click on a link.
• "Mitchell caught what appeared to be a touchdown in the corner of the endzone". Minor, but I thought end zone was two words.
• The one general comment I have so far is that there seems to be an excessive amount of detail regarding his performances, at least in the college section. It looks like every game from the 2000 season is included in some way, which strikes me as a little bit of overkill. I know comprehensiveness is desired, but it's questionable to me whether a routine seven-reception, 65-yard performance is significant enough to be mentioned.
• Pre-draft: "Mitchell was also criticized by scouts for his small frame and character concerns." The scouts had the concerns, not Mitchell, right? Prose is a little ambiguous on that at the moment.
• Is there a known reason why Mel Kiper downgraded Mitchell in his draft projections? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Re: Deadspin: The article (I've just learned) was written by Will Leitch, who is the founder of the website and later wrote for the New York Times.
• Re: excessive minor statistics: this was also brought up in the peer review for the professional career section. I'll work on it.
• Re: character concerns: I'm not too sure how to rearrange this, but I've given it a shot.
• Re: Kiper: I would guess it's because of other players' draft "stock" rising after their Pro Days or something, but I don't believe there is information on the true details.
• Besides these, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments, leaning oppose: This looks a very comprehensive and generally well written article, which covers his career very effectively. So far, I have only read the first couple of sections in detail. However, I have some concerns about a few aspects at the moment. My main worry is that this is probably fantastic if you are a football fan, but not if you are a general reader. My knowledge of American Football is slim, and I found parts to be hard going. An FA needs to be accessible to the general reader (although not every single aspect of the sport needs to be spelt out), and we are not quite there yet. However, it should not be too difficult to sort out one way or another. (I think a few of my comments echo those by Giants above, but I only realised afterwards) --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The first paragraph of the lead could do with being a little stronger. As someone who has never heard of him, I would expect the first paragraph to let me know more about his achievements, and more of an overview of his career, not just the first years of it.
• Also, I think the lead goes into too much detail over his career, at the expense of other aspects of the article, such as Early years and Personal.
• For idiots like me who aren't too familiar with the sport, maybe link "reception", "touchdown", "touchdown pass"?
• "and caught only twelve passes the entire year": I'm assuming this is bad, but maybe it could be made a little clearer (e.g. "considered poor for XXX")?
• "After Freeman left before the 2003 season, Mitchell became the slot receiver once again." Not quite sure about "after…before" here. Maybe "After Freeman left prior to the 2003 season…" or maybe even "Mitchell became the slot receiver once again during the 2003 season, after Freeman left".

Early years

• "Mitchell earned The Ledger second-team all-area honors": Not quite following what it was that he earned here.
• If he was drafted, what happened to his baseball subsequently?
• "Mitchell visited the University of Florida, Florida State University, the University of Miami, and Michigan State University before he committed to the University of California, Los Angeles to play football for the Bruins.": Seems over-detailed to me, but if this is significant, it could do to be spelt out.

College career

• Reading this section, I am a little concerned that it is almost impossible to read, if you do not understand football terminology, without following a lot of links, which is rather distracting and discouraging. For example, "He had one rushing attempt for 30 yards on a reverse, 78 yards on three kickoff returns, and 17 yards on three punt returns." is almost impenetrable for me, even clicking on "reverse". While I obviously would not expect every part of this biography to spell out rules and terminology, for a FA it is better if the reader can discover most of the relevant information without clicking and clicking. And each term would only need to be explained once, and then used freely throughout the rest of the article. This is the way that most current sports FAs operate.
• "Mitchell sat out the 1997 season for the UCLA Bruins by taking a redshirt." Although this is linked, I think it would help the reader more if it could be explained briefly in the text without having to follow a link to discover what "taking a redshirt" means.
• "four catches for 108 yards and one touchdown pass (79 yards) from quarterback Cade McNown": Again, without expecting a description of the rules of football, I think that here, where this terminology is first used, a long-hand explanation of what this means would really benefit the non-specialist reader.
• "one rushing attempt for 30 yards" Link?
• "He was named the Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Week for his efforts in the game": Again, it would be nice to know what was this award, for what reasons was it given, and by whom was it awarded, without clicking links.
• "after a "remarkable" recovery": Who said it was remarkable? Press? Doctors? Team-mates?
• "Mitchell and Poli-Dixon worked out with Minnesota Vikings receivers Randy Moss and Cris Carter": Does this mean trained, or worked in a gymn, or something else?

General

• Although I have not read the complete article, I notice that there is no section on "style" or "technique". Most sports FAs have something about this; even if there is not a dedicated section, there is information throughout the article (I apologise if it is there and I haven' seen it). For example, what was his style of play? Why was he successful? How did contemporaries rate him? What did the press or other critics say? I'm not sure listing awards is enough as these do not comment on his play. Scanning through, there seem to be some bits from coaches, etc, but I am not getting an impression of how he played or what people thought of him.--Sarastro1 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll try to address your concerns. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion for a "style" or "technique" section, American football is not cricket. Of the three American football biography FAs (Tyrone Wheatley, Scott Zolak, and Jim Thorpe), not a single one has this section, as there really is no "style" or "technique" for American football players. Maybe quarterbacks, but certainly not wide receivers such as Mitchell. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I wasn't thinking just about cricket. Many baseball and ice hockey articles that I have reviewed have this section, but as I said above I would not insist on an actual section. However, there must be something on his technique, or what made him good. Was it speed? Catching ability? Throwing (Sorry, I'm probably just betraying my ignorance here!)? What were the skills he practised which made him effective? Please feel free to argue! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find and I'll get back to you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

James G. Blaine

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after a GA review and a peer review, it's ready for a shot at the bronze star. Coemgenus (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Coemgenus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I made a few minor changes. I can't see anything wrong with it. Looks like it passes FAC to me.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether explanatory notes have their citations inline or as footnotes
• No citations to Bastert
• Be consistent in whether you provide full page ranges for articles in Sources
• Why provide states for entries in Sources but not for those in Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I think I've fixed all of these. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments A good effort, only a few concerns:

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "advocate of black suffrage" As there was at least some black suffrage, perhaps "supporter" instead of "advocate"?

• Changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I may be overly picky, but my reaction to reading about the coercive measures under Grant was to say "What about the ones under Johnson"?

• I took out the Grant bit. Don't remember why that was in there in the first place. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Maine politics

• "Even in the party's early days," maybe "From the party's early days"?

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, consider changing a couple of "Blaine"s to "him".

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction

• I would mention which view of what states must ratify the 14th amendment prevailed

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Some appropriate use of links and pipes regarding the Johnson impeachment would be a good thing.

• Done? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Monetary policy

• "were ordered to be redeemed in gold" I would say "were made redeemable in gold". Once the act passed, people found they didn't mind carrying them around instead of heavy lumpy gold coins.

• Good point -- almost none were actually redeemed once people knew it was guaranteed. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaker of the House

• "large house on Fifteenth Street in the city.[43] At the same time, the Blaine family moved to a larger house" some variation in the "large house" sequence would be good. In fact, I would suggest changing both, this section talks a lot already about Houses.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• " fraudulent railroad construction contracts in which the government was overcharged by millions of dollars." Cannot this be shortened?

• Done. That should be less unwieldy. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• " allowed for the fraud" maybe "made the fraud possible"?

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Plumed Knight

• "also resigned as Treasury Secretary three days later" Three days later than what? The close of the convention, I assume. I would clarify.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of State 1881

• " presiding over the cabinet " Well, he didn't, did he? Wasn't that Garfield's job?

• I'm not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• While, especially then, SecState was considered the lead Cabinet post, he doesn't actually preside in Cabinet meetings, the President does. It's purely honorary.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of State redux

• I would toss a mention of Pearl Harbor (the place) into the first paragraph of the Pacific Diplomacy section.

Good point; it might interest people that Pearl was important to the U.S. even back then. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Carter agreed" This is a strong term. Did he sign a treaty or something?

He agreed enough to take the idea back to Hawaii and propose it to the king and his cabinet. The sources don't say whether Carter put his name to a treaty -- I would guess he did not, but it's vague. I changed the language. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• " Blaine next appointed " Harrison did, actually. Maybe "procured the appointment of "?

Good point. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can perhaps a paragraph or so be written in conclusion about, if not legacy, at least the effect Blaine had on the nation and the Republican party?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Legacy is tough -- he is nearly forgotten today -- but he certainly had an impact in his day. Give me a couple days to fiddle with some language -- Ealdgyth suggested something similar at GA review and I never got to it, but the Rolde book gets into the subject a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I added a legacy paragraph at the end. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for this well-written, comprehensive article about a very interesting figure in U.S. history. When I first began reading it, I didn't realize he was the one responsible for codifying the separation of church and state in relation to public schools (but should have known, as an education major!). - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Boletus frostii

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Boletus frostii is a handsome edible bolete mushroom found in North and Central America. I've done all I can with respect to research/sourcing and tweaking prose & MoS, and think it's ready for this FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources look good to me, nitpicks:

• Generally, designations such as Ltd. needn't be included for publishers.
• Ref 19: Translation seems a bit off (I'm a native Dutch speaker with considerable knowledge of German). In this context, "distinct" would be a better translation for auffallender than "striking". Also, would "Bolete" for "Röhrling" make more sense than Boletus? What exactly is Luridi?

• Have changed these words as suggested. Luridi is the name of a section of the genus Boletus. Sasata (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 28: English title translation seems incomplete to me. Auree ^★★ 20:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, fixed. Thanks for the check. Sasata (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support on criteria 1a/c/d/e and 2/a/b/. Sasata, your mushroom articles always make for a delightful read. I simply could not find anything worthwile to comment on, so I took the liberty of fixing any nitpicks I had myself (please check if I haven't altered any meanings). One suggestion: It might be useful to mention that it's a North American species in the opening sentence; at least, that's what I gathered from the article. I'm no expert on the subject, so I don't feel comfortable judging comprehensiveness, although I performed spotchecks for all uses of refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 -- I found no problems whatsoever. (For 5 and 6, I suggest linking to the pages where the quoted text appears instead.) Auree ^★★ 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review and support. I've directed the links to the specific page #'s as you suggested, and reorganized the lead so the distribution info is closer to the beginning. Sasata (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I find it increasing difficult to find anything to nitpick in your tasty mushrooms. Personally, I would have assumed the meaning of rootlet was obvious, but it's clearly not wrong to link it, so... nothing more to say Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just a single comment from me regarding the wording, on what otherwise seems to be a spotless article. For the lede:

"amber drop" - wouldn't "amber-coloured" be more correct here? It would also remove the need to inter link to 'amber (color)'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added -colored (but kept the link, it's borderline useful). Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

• File:Adnate_gills_icon2.png cites itself as a source

• I'll ask the image creator about this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a book source for the image. Sasata (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:Karl_Johanssvamp,_Iduns_kokbok.png needs a US PD tag

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. A few tiny quibbles-

• "Another characteristic of young, moist fruit bodies are the amber-colored drops exuded on the pore surface." Another characteristic ... are...- singular/plural?
• You don't mention the "adverse effects" experienced by some outside of the lead- is this a hangover from something unsourced, or is there something that needs to be added to the edibility section?
• "shaped somewhat like a swollen bottle; they are 30–53 long by 7.5–14 µm wide.[4]" Not certain about this- how about splitting it into two sentences?
• "A 1980 publication tentatively suggested that the fungus was also present in Italy,[27] but the author later determined that the putative B. frostii was actually Boletus siculus.[28]" Perhaps Boletis siculus would be a useful addition to "similar species"?

Very well written overall. I made a couple of tiny changes. I'm sure I'll be supporting soon. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made your suggested changes here. I grouped mention of B. siculus together with B. permagnificus, as they are both similar Euro species (some have suggested they are synonymous, but I don't wan't to get into that in this article). Regarding adverse reactions from consumption, after checking through my sources, it seems that Kuo is the only one who mentions this specifically for this species (and he's a little vague about it anyway), so I added a little quote from his book in the edibility section and modified the mention in the lead to better reflect the consensus from sources. Thanks for reviewing. Sasata (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, I am happy that this is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support provided the image issue noted above is resolved. I couldn't find any issues, except that I disagree with Auree: "striking" is a better translation for "auffallend". Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. I changed the word to the original "striking"--not disparaging your German skills, Auree, but that was the word used in the translation provided by the Web of Knowledge. Sasata (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I definitely trust Ucucha over myself on this one, haha Auree ^★★ 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – At the start of Ecology, habitat, and distribution, is "mycorrizhal" meant to be "mycorrhizal"? Don't want to change it myself since I'm not 100% sure that's a glitch, but that isn't how I remember the term from my schooling. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good catch, fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan

Nominator(s): lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently received a peer review and all the required changes have been made to the article. The article is in good shape and well sourced. It has under gone a through overhaul in addition to the peer review. lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to delegates: WP:FFA, has already been on mainpage (should this article be re-promoted, that needs to be reflected at FFA, and mainpage appearance accounted for at FA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: I haven't read the article yet, but a couple quick things at first glance:
• Repeated wikilinks seem to be an issue.
• As of this revision ref #123 looks dead and 224 needs a subscription required template.
• Check image captions for compliance with MOS:CAPTION.
• "Tourism is also noted for its potential and Pakistan has been stated as the tourism industry's "next big thing"." You should probably note in text who said this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned Lonely Planet in text. And 123 fixed, 224 removed. September88 (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Completed MOS:CAPTION check. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - there's currently an NPOV tag on the article that should be addressed before this review goes too much further. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, on the talk page, the tagger said he put it there because he thought one section was too small. As he didn't mention neutrality, I encouraged him to discuss his concerns about inadequate coverage or use an expand section template instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues were discussed at Talk:Pakistan#Bangladesh... the current version is according to the consensus. Actually editors suggest to reduce the redundancy further if possible. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am still highly dissatisfied with the meager coverage given to the events of 1971. It is by far one of the major events in the nations history, up to 3 million dead, up to 400,000 women raped, 25000 war babies, an economy destroyed, entire villages razed to the ground, the intellectual elite dragged from their homes and murdered, up to 10 million refugees fleeing to India and a further 30 million displaced. The partition of a nation is no small thing, and it needs considerable expansion. You quite simply cannot cover a genocide in a few lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

At the current rate, your aim seems to be geared towards making this article more about the Bangladesh Liberation War than even the Pakistan Movement itself. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreement with Mar4d. Pakistan's page is for summary of events and Bangladesh liberation has been covered enough in that respect already; infact it has the longest explanation in Republic section than any other event. So any further detail is completely unnecessary. Go to Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War to put details. September88 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been stable content since quite some time... it even stayed almost the same during the full overhaul of the article in last three months. New issues only started arising when intentions for FAC were put on article talk. See, for instance, the RFC about the failed state label, consensus on keeping that out of this article (that RFC delayed the FAC for a month). For the current issues too.. the talk page currently has due discussion where the consensus was to only include the no of causalities to this section (which has been done). This is completely comprehensive and as of now by-passes POV issues without going in much detail of them. Those dedicated articles are for those issues. This is a country article and going into details of each issue is completely inappropriate. Mentioning one view will require to present all clarifications or view points which will make the single incident really long. Even the campaign for the country's independence has been mentioned in a comprehensive way instead of lingering details. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you are both wrong, articles are meant to reflect what majority of sources say. Currently the genocide is a few brief lines, hardly enough to cover the events. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As TopGun says the number of casualties has been mentioned, according to the sources you are talking about, after due discussion on Talk Page. Now further expanding on basis of strong feelings of a user on this issue has no place here; the article has to be kept reasonable length. Now if you can please properly address all points raised by the three user in reply to your comment, then we can continue this discussion. September88 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The genocide which lead to the destruction of a nation currently has ten lines. The Media and entertainment is as follows, 9 lines for the TV station. 7 lines for music. So entertainment gets 16 lines, but a genocidal campaign which split the nation gets 10? Perhaps people ought to address my points as neither yourself or Mar4d have raised any. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: is this FAC going slow or this much time is normal before actual evaluation starts? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asked by TopGun to comment on this article. I probably won't provide a full review, but I'd like to offer the following comments on the basis of sections of the article I've selected more or less at random. I think that they indicate that the article is under-developed for FA status, so I'm leaning oppose.

• An issue raised in regards to the India article a while ago is that while a high proportion of inhabitants of that country live in poverty and its overall level of economic development is fairly low, all the photos in the article depicted prosperous people and brand new buildings. This article appears to suffer from the same problem.
• The statement that "Growth has been slow during the civilian rules; while three long periods of military rule have seen remarkable recovery" considerably over-simplifies the argument made in the supporting reference, which explicitly states that there's more to this than just whether the rulers of the country were elected or not and notes that the military rulers did a poor job of building economic capacity. I'm pretty sure that I've seen the opposite argument made as well.
• "Despite being a very poor country in 1947, the growth rate has been better than the global average during the subsequent four decades, but slowed in the late 1990s." - the 'despite' seems unnecessary here; it's generally much easier for less-developed countries to grow at high rates than it is for developed countries as they have more unused capacity.
• "Tourism is also noted for its potential and Pakistan has been stated by Lonely Planet as the tourism industry's "next big thing"" - The source provided doesn't support this, and appears to actually say the opposite. It starts with a warning against travelling to Pakistan and actually states that "Pakistan has been on the brink of being tourism's ‘next big thing’ for more years than we care to remember", which means something quite different than what has been plucked out from it, and the rest of the page states that while there's lots to see in Pakistan, it's a risky place to visit. Many national governments warn against travel to Pakistan as well (for instance, Australia).
• "transport infrastructure accounts for 10.5% of Pakistan's GDP" - the source actually says that the transport sector represents this proportion of GDP.
• The coverage of the country's military, science and technology and foreign relations hardly mentions the country's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, despite these being important to all three topics. The material which does exist on these weapons is sourced to a Pakistani Government publication and reads like propaganda, despite this being a controversial topic ("The need for strategic balance in interest of security lead to Pakistan establishing itself as a nuclear power in the wake of India's nuclear tests. Despite pressure from the world, Pakistan maintains an independent stance to further nuclear development and purchase military weapons.")
• There's no material on Pakistani support for the Taliban prior to (and probably since) September 2001.
• The material on the Pakistani political system is very 'dry' and doesn't really give a feel for how politics works in this country.
• "and played a major role in rescuing trapped American soldiers from Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993 in Operation Gothic Serpent." - interesting for Americans, but a minor incident in Pakistani military history.
• Comments on sources:
  • "Ayub Khan's successor, General Yahya Khan (1969–71) had to deal with a devastating cyclone which caused 500,000 deaths in East Pakistan." - needs a reference
  • About.com isn't a reliable source
  • What makes http://www.gendercide.org a reliable source?
  • Tourist guidebooks shouldn't be used as general references
  • Globalsecurity.org isn't a reliable source (it republishes stuff hoovered up from all over the place, and is full of errors)
  • Few of the many references to PDF documents have page numbers to where the material cited is located
  • At least two of the books in the 'further reading' section are also used as references Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Before I start checking out the issues pointed out, I'll specify that the alleged support for Taliban (both before and after 9/11) has been contested by Pakistan and is a very controversial topic in itself... this was discussed at [1] and the consensus was to exclude the specific details from this article and rather mention the US relations over it which are stated as: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." Including the details in this article will open a Pandora's box. definitely not comprehensive then. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

Nominator(s): María (yllosubmarine) 17:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

These gold lights veer and retrack, shatter and glide in a series of dazzling splashes, shrinking, leaking, exploding. The ridge's bosses and hummocks sprout bulging from its side; the whole mountain looms miles closer; the light warms and reddens; the bare forest folds and pleats itself like living protoplasm before my eyes, like a running chart, a wildly scrawling oscillograph on the present moment. The air cools; the puppy's skin is hot. I am more alive than all the world.

Annie Dillard published Pilgrim at Tinker Creek in 1974, when she was only 28-years-old. One year later, she won a Pulitzer Prize. The book is one of my personal favorites: it's poetic, yet strangely detached. Scientific, yet entirely personal. While petting puppies and stalking muskrats, Dillard presents an entirely unique voice -- yes, although the book is compared to Walden, it is unique. So here I present the article, which has been through both GAC and PR. I created the stub way back in 2007, but didn't begin development until last fall. Since then it's been fleshed out and tinkered with, so I now believe it's ready for its star. :) María (yllosubmarine) 17:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources review

• Note 22 (The New York Times): it should be noted that this is a login/subscription site.
  • Added. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note 46: Can you give a date (rather than a year) for the Saturday Evening Post article?
  • Date added: November 1, 1974. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• In the References list there are inconsistencies in how page ranges are presented ("pp." or not "pp.")
  • Added "pp." to all. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dillard's official website should not be listed as a cited source and as an External link
  • Hm, I'm not sure about this. The official website's homepage[2] is used as an EL, but the sub-page dedicated to her books[3] is what is used as a source. Does that still count as redundant? María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise the sources look excellent – a wide range of scholarly material, much of it recent. I have not been able to spotcheck as I don't have these sources. The only online sources are the NYT (sub required) and a couple of reference lists. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: I peer reviewed this recently. All my comments were in my view properly addressed. Dillard is not too well known on this side of the Atlantic, and I found the article very engaging; it left me wanting to know more about the book and the writer. I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Brian! I have just one question for clarification above. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's such a small point that I'd leave it alone, unless someone else insists. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 comments (leaning support):
  

(Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk)

• Support Fantastic read and it makes me want to read the book Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Crisco! Totally read the book. :) María (yllosubmarine) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Shame shipping costs to my place of residence are sky-high! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

Nominator(s): Fayedizard (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria as I understand them. Until very recently it was one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes. Since then I nominated it for GA, which it passed following review from Binksternet, and has also had a peer review from Finetooth (with continuing useful comments from Binksternet)- both these processes have improved the article immensely. I'd like to shepherd it thought the next stage towards FA. :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know much about FAR, but for what it's worth: the second paragraph in the speech synthesizer section sounds a bit like OR. Would it be possible to cite sources which talk about his public appearances? The TED video has maybe one usable line. Hope that helps, SPat ^talk 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, good catch - that one has appeared to slip though the net, sources added and content tweaked :) How does it look now? Fayedizard (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books

I've replaced all book refs (with one exception) with references generated by [4] - this should have addressed the above recommendation as a side effect :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, though a couple (ex. ref 32) appears to have lost their page number(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blush* fixed now...Fayedizard (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first

Books where going the opposite way to everything else - have fixed this now. Fayedizard (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 22, 28, 39, 69, 74, 75: publisher?

So I'm a little unsure of myself for this one - I had to make my best guess for publisher of some of these, and I suspect you might have some follow up recommendations... Fayedizard (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For 28, the publisher appears to be "Charlie Rose LLC", otherwise alright. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in italicization

I've fixed a few problems with this (mostly the guardian) - I ran into a little bit of a problem with this recommendation - my understanding is that italicization depends mostly on if the text appears as a 'work' or a 'publisher' in the template, so I'd generally be inclined to move all the sources to use 'work' whereever they can, even if it's a bit of a judgement call (for example, BBC news might not necessarily be a 'work', and the BBC documentary listings are even less so). On the other hand, moving everything over to use 'work' instead of 'publisher' conflicts a little with your previous suggestion so I've clearly confused myself a little - can you go into a bit more detail on this recommendation?

Basically, if you're using a publication name it should be italicized, if you're using a URL it can either be italicized or not (but should be consistent - either all are italicized or all aren't), anything else shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay - this should have mostly been sorted out by the other changes, but I'll keep looking Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how online news sources are notated

I've made some changes that I think you were thinking of - but I've got a nagging feeling I've missed some - have I missed something obvious?

Well, you've got some that look different still - compare 31 and 75, or 30 and 71, or 55 and 57, or 69 with pretty much anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Made a bunch of changes :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?

Replaced Famousscientists (and in the process, improved the year) - dropped the O'brian content, and sourced the discover channel mention - thank you for finding the simpsons reference! :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't repeat cited sources in External links (and that section could stand to be trimmed)

It's been cut down - some repeated links have gone (such as IMDB) because the source has disappeared - It appears logical to keep his homepage even though some info is sourced to it - can we talk about this some more? Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the homepage is an exception to the redundancy rule of redundancy - feel free to keep it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Further reading and Bibliography format should be the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced all book refs (with one exception) with references generated by [5] - this should have addressed the above recommendation as a side effect :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for checking - these all look very sensible and should be quite quick to deal with - although I've been called away unexpectedly so, assuming it's okay by you, I'll work these (and hopefully other changes suggested by more reviewers) in tomorrow evening :) Fayedizard (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Nice work taking the initiative to carry this through GA and the FA process, especially in light of it being an article that was gradually built up by a variety of editors over time. Polishing articles like these takes a lot of effort. With the changes you've made here I think this very important article meets the FA standards. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Iraq War in Anbar Province

Nominator(s): Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been working on this article on and off for the past two years. It has been Peer Reviewed and achieved GA Status. I believe I have addressed, or made good faith attempts to address, all concerns about it so far. The biggest problem I can see is that I believe its length has dissuaded a lot of editors from taking a hard look at it, so don't hold back! :) Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Used strikeout on corrections that I've made. Obviously feel free to remove them if you don't believe I've adequately addressed them ;) Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't the title be Iraq War in the Anbar Province. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Even though I've heard a lot of people refer to it as "Al Anbar", ("Al" being Arabic for "The") I've never heard of the definite article being used with Anbar Province in English. You could make a plausible case for renaming it Iraq War in Al Anbar Province. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Simon Burchell (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the into "...secure the Western Euphrates River" - is the Western Euphrates a separate river (in which case it should be wikilinked as such), if not then it should be "western Euphrates".
• "stability and advisory role" - these two don't go well together.Stability is a noun, while advisory is an adjective. Perhaps "stabilizing and advisory" or something better.
• In "Background" western-most; surely this should be westernmost.
• The terrain outside of the Euphrates area is overwhelmingly desert. - which desert does this belong to?
• In "Invasion of Iraq" - the first Coalition Forces; I think it should be either Coalition forces or coalition forces, depending on whether the coalition is capitalised throughout or not. In any case the capital "F" looks out of place.
• In "Summer of 2003" - Major Matthew Schram became the first American killed in Anbar Province since the invasion - I think after the invasion or following the invasion would read better.
• In "Fall of 2003" - I ran "shootdown" through a couple of online dictionaries without success - but the Oxford dictionary returned a hyphenated "shoot-down". I'm a Brit, so I wouldn't know if "shootdown" is accepted US usage, but the online dictionaries would suggest not.

• Interesting, I think "shootdown" may be accepted in American English, Wiktionary has an entry with a citation to the New York Times. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. Not sure one instance in a newspaper is enough to establish it as the correct spelling. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• More to follow, from 2004 onwards, but generally looks very good so far. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• In "First Battle of Fallujah" you have both "cease-fire" and "cease fire" - all instances should be checked and changed to "ceasefire".
• In "Insurgency in 2004": the insurgency was still viewed by Iraqi as legitimate - something not quite right there. "Iraqis"? "many Iraqis"?
• The insurgents would never conveniently massed before the overwhelming firepower of the US for the rest of the Anbar campaign. Again, something wrong here; this needs to be rephrased.
• The official Marine Corps history claims that the battle was not decisive, because most of the insurgent leadership and non-local insurgents had managed to flee before the battle - try to rephrase this so as not to use "battle" twice in the same sentence. I would suggest "insurgents had managed to flee beforehand"
• In "Winter of 2005": more up-armored - I don't understand what this means - does it mean "more heavily armoured", or does it mean armour mounted higher up on the vehicle? Either way it needs to be clarified.
• In "Securing western Anbar": including Akihiko Saito. - why is he singled out for naming? A short phrase to tell us something about him would be good.

• There was a personal connection there, since my unit got tasked with trying to find his body in 2009. But you're right, he really wasn't exceptional. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

More to follow, 2006 onwards. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• In "Haditha killings": failing to properly initially report - this is somewhat clumsy and should be rephrased.
• In "Second Battle of Ramadi": The first outpost was built in July 2006; not only did it bring former insurgent territory under American control, but the insurgents also lost many men attacking them. - seems to mix up singular and plural; is this talking about one outpost or all of them?
• In "Awakening movement" there is a photo of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha - the accompanying text mentions sheikh Sittar - is this the same person? If so his name is spelt wrong somewhere...
• Check your captions throughout. Captions that are not complete sentences/paragraphs of text shouldn't end with a full stop.

• I've gone through the captions myself, as best I can. In retrospect, perhaps I'm not the best person for that particular job (I always get caught out myself) - so apologies in advance if anyone else comes along and asks for them to be changed again... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• In "The Surge": in what became known as The Surge. - I'm not sure about the capitalisation there, it looks strange.

• "The Surge" is both the official and unofficial designation for the increase in military personnel in 2007. For example, this official Marine Corps document refers to the "Iraqi Surge" as the official campaign name for all military activity in Iraq between Jan 2007 and Dec 2008. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really wondering about the capital "T" in The, maybe the Surge would be better; or "The Surge" in inverted commas. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped in a couple of convert templates to give metric as well as imperial units, please check that all units of measurement have conversions throughout the article.
• In general metric and imperial units are used indiscriminately - square miles in one place and square kilometers in another - when all conversions are in place, make sure that either imperial/metric are consistantly displayed in the same order (you can use disp=flip in the convert template to reverse the display order).
• I've seen an instance of Haditha Triad (without inverted commas) and one of "Haditha Triad" (with inverted commas) - choose one or the other and stick with it.
• 120 mm mortar shells and two 100-pound chlorine tanks - switching between metric and imperial in the same sentence, but I don't know anything about post-medieval ammunition terminology and don't know whether conversion templates are appropriate here, so I'll just point it out so someone who knows better than me can pick it up.

• The US military uses the metric system for some things and the imperial for others. It's weird, but I think there's a template somewhere to switch between the two. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Try {{Template:Convert}} - I already dropped a couple in as examples, but Template:Convert has a full list of syntax.

• In "MRAPs": The original MRAP they would design, the Cougar, was initially fielded... - the tenses seem to be all over the place here - perhaps "The original MRAP they had designed..."
• In "Operation 'Alljah'": - They uncovered several mass graves with over 100 victims left behind by AQI - this is rather ambiguous, is that over 100 victims in each grave or over 100 victims in total. Please rephrase it to make it clearer.
• In "America declares victory" - "21,000 Anbaris on police roles" - is that a direct quote? Otherwise in police roles. If it is a direct quote, perhaps it could use a (sic).

Enough for now. 2008 onwards to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• In "Human rights abuses": Both sides committed human rights abuses in Anbar Province and civilians were often caught between the two sides - rephrase this to avoid using "sides" twice - maybe "...were often caught in the middle."
• In "Insurgent abuses": found several mass graves near Lake Tharthar with over 100 victims. - same problem as another instance above; this has ambiguous phrasing. Did each grave contain over 100, or was the total of all graves over 100? Please rephrase.
• References - Reference no.2 had a footnote that should be separated into the footnotes section. Otherwise I haven't checked the references through and will leave that for someone else.

Your previous changes look fine. On the whole the article is in good shape. I have one concern over neutrality: your {{rquote}}s are unbalanced; you have 1 quote from an Iraqi student near the beginning, in the rest of the article there are 6 quotes from US sources. I'm not asking that they be removed - I quite like them where they are, but the inclusion of more Iraqi commentary would balance the article up considerably - there must be some comments from Iraqi diplomats/spokesmen/officials/police/public that would be suitable, even oposition statements. There is a partial quote in the Drawdown section with an Iraqi saying "total destruction... you just came in, destroyed, and left."; moving this to an rquote would be a good start.

• LOL! My peer edit review said I had too MANY quotes (14), so I cut them down to the smallest number possible. How many Iraqi quotes do you think I need? Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, enough to balance it out, I suppose quantity is a matter of taste - but equal numbers of both would be excellent. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

On the whole an interesting read. Well done on producing such a comprehensive article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Thanks for the changes - it all looks good to me, bearing in mind I didn't review referencing or images. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't generally have external links in main article
• In order for your shortened citations to link correctly, you'll need to add |ref=harv to your bibliography entries and use the last-first rather than author format (sorry, didn't check all of them the first time)
• FN 15 appears to be the same as one of the bibliography entries, but the title is slightly different

  It's an earlier version of "Marines in Iraq: Into the Fray". All they really did was add a bunch of pictures and maps. Have added the first to the bibliography and distinguish by year. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid repeating full bibliographic info in footnotes for sources that appear in the bibliography - use shortened citations consistently

• (Crosses fingers) That should be all of them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether shortened citations use author-date or title

• (Crosses fingers) That should be all of them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ex FN 82. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of bibliography

• Not following. Authors are in there alphabetically; when the same author, they're in order chronologically or by volume number. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why is McWilliams after Michaels? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Not fixed 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I got them. Let me know if that also applies to co-authors. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• In general, citation formatting and consistency needs extensive cleanup
  • See below for more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dead links (example) need fixing

• Running the checker again, but I'm able to see your example. Could it be a browser issue? Palm_Dogg (talk)
• OK, that should do it. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?

• Leatherneck Magazine is a semi-official magazine published by direct affiliates of the Marine Corps. Have made that more clear in the citation. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Mir Bahmanyar, the author of SuaSponte.com, is a published author who has written seven books on modern warfare and US Special Forces. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - while I recognize the massive amount of work that must have gone into this article, citations need extensive cleanup. Many are inconsistent and some are incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please ping me when the sourcing issues have been dealt with to Nikki's satisfaction, and I'll be happy to have a look at the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

More on sourcing - see also a few yet unaddressed above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't notate either authors or titles in all-caps
• Check for consistency in italicization and wikilinking
• What is Unk?
• FN 31: linked source gives a lot more citation details than you do
• Ranges should consistently use endashes
• Check for titling consistency - for example, The Boston Globe or just Boston Globe? Time or Time Magazine? etc
• Don't italicize publishers
• FN 67: AFPS is the agency, not the work or the publisher
• Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for online newspapers
• Check for glitches like doubled periods
• FN 119: publisher, page?
• FN 125: formatting
• Why do some of your citations list archive dates as not applicable or unknown?

• I didn't know them, but was getting error messages when I tried to post the citation template without them; I just threw in today's date. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "pp." should be used for multiple pages, "p." for single
• FN 168: April of what year?
• Where is North County?

• North County Times. San Diego, CA, which is also where Camp Pendleton is located. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 269: formatting
• Be consistent in when you provide locations for newspapers, and how these are formatted
• FN 312: issue, page?
• Be consistent in whether agencies are spelled out or abbreviated
• Don't need complete page count for books in bibliography
• Check for naming consistency - for example, Vintage Books or just Vintage? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrisye

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. I have invested a significant amount of time and money into the expansion of this article and the results have paid off well. Chrisye, although he did not have an international career, is one of the most famous singers in Indonesia. Over thirty years he released 21 studio albums and collaborated on one that Rolling Stone Indonesia called the best Indonesian album of all time. I'd like to thank everyone who took a look at this, including Drmies, Mark Arsten, and Malleus Fatuorum who copyedited, and Brianboulton and Ruhrfisch who conducted a peer review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I have digital copies of the Kompas references if required. They are in Indonesian, however. I am also hoping that this is TFA for the 5 year anniversary of his death (30 March 2012) so expediency would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I found 3 references that have harv errors (using Ucucha's script): 64, 71, and 76. Also, some of the news and web sources don't have a work or publisher defined, and that is problematic for verification. Clay^Clay_Clay 04:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed the harv errors for sure. Pretty sure I got all the missing work / publisher parameters. Diff Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Resolved comments by Mark Arsten (talk) moved to talk at 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, looks like they've been taken care of. Thanks to the quick responses of Crisco and Malleus, I'm now ready to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rainilaiarivony

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vital Article (level 4). Meet Rainilaiarivony, Prime Minister of Madagascar for 31 years (1864-95) in the run-up to French colonization and the only Malagasy biography to be classified as a Vital Article. He lived through a period of rapid modernization: as a child his father amputated his fingers to ward off an ill fate, but by the end of his career he oversaw a well-organized modern state with a British-trained army and the most advanced school system in Sub-Saharan Africa. The article has passed GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thank you for reviewing and offering your comments. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Seem to be relying rather heavily on a single biography - what steps have you taken to look for a wider variety of sources?

• There are only two biographies on Rainilaiarivony The biography I used is the only one that exists for Rainilaiarivony. (The other book that looks like a biography, "La prédiction, ou, La vie de Rainilaiarivony", is actually a work of fiction based on his life.) The "Rainilaiarivony, un homme d'etat malgache" biography is mainly used as a source for details in the period of his life when Rainilaiarivony was not Prime Minister (childhood, family life details, exile details). All the secondary sources I've found on Rainilaiarivony mainly discuss his tenure as Prime Minister, with a sentence or two to mention his exile and his military career. My understanding is we are encouraged to avoid primary sources, which are just about the only other place I could have found detailed information about these other periods of his life. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Primary sources are a mixed bag... Personally, I recommend finding the best secondary sources to build the bulk of the article around, and then use primary sources (depending on their age and other factors) to help fill in the gaps. Also, if primary sources with new details were published after the secondary sources, often their content is worth mentioning. – Maky ^« talk » 06:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The primary sources I've found primarily discussed his time as Prime Minister but didn't add more helpful detail (in light of the scope of the article as it's written currently). Much more detailed info is available on the reforms he made as Prime Minister if a summary style is not what we need here. But for the other periods of his life (except perhaps during his exile, which lasted only months) I've found conflicting information in the primary sources. For example, one of them said only one finger was amputated. So I thought it best to rely on a biography that did that research and compared all the primary sources the author could find (including many in archives overseas that I can't access) to do the synthesis and present the most correct information for these periods. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Karthala Éditions or Editions Karthala or Karthala Editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Changed all to Karthala Editions per google books info pages. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim an interesting article, no major problems, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I made these changes], please check (some cosmetic, a couple of typos).

• Thank you for catching the typos and smoothing out the prose here. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I thought this was article was somewhat underlinked, can you check if any further wikilinks would assist your readers?

• I've gone through and added quite a few links. Good suggestion! Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are three occurrences of "promoted" and two of "power" in the first paragraph of the lead, can you vary a bit?

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• With a few pennies he invested... — reads a little oddly, can it be rephrased?

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Valiant and strategic — pov?

• Reworded - I think it works better now. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Upon learning of the death of this respected figure — We are some way from the subject of this sentence, I think you need to repeat the name.

• Changed a bit. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, and thanks for taking the time to comment here. I always appreciate your input. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• No further concerns, changed to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesse L. Brown

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 23:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It's a Good Article and has passed a MILHIST A-class review. I'd hoped to get it up for Black History Month but got delayed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks, PD attribution template present. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when "midshipman" is capitalized - differs between caption and article text
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• As File:Naval_Aviator_Badge.jpg is a photo of a 3D object, need to provide licensing info for both the photo and the object itself
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea_ribbon.png: do UN service ribbons fall under a similar PD ruling as US ones? On what source was this image based?
  • I believe in a previous FAC it was established that they do fall under a similar PD. Either way, the US government created a PD version of the work. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 1: entry name shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments:

General

• This is a US topic, so it should be MM-DD-YYYY.
  • See WP:MOS#Choice of format, please. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Right, there's an exclusion for military topics. Sorry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Serial commas should probably be used, as the article should be in American English
  • I've never seen this recommendation at FAC before. - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • From the Serial comma article, "In American English, the serial comma is standard usage in non-journalistic writing that follows the Chicago Manual of Style." I personally prefer the serial comma for American topics, although Ed may disagree. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that he has to insert them, or are you just making him aware of serial comma? (Chicago and Garner's also support the serial comma, btw.) The problem is that nothing succeeds like excess, and most text that most people see nowadays omits the serial comma, even if that text is derided as "journalistic", so this is a very hard battle to win, and WP:MOS#Serial commas lets editors go either way (and is worth reading). - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I work based on AP Style, which sometimes creeps into my contributions. I was under the impression that no serial commas are fine as long as it is consistent in the article. Is that not the case? —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It is. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede

• "In spite of encountering deep-seated institutionalized racism, ..." is there a semantic difference between "deep-seated" and "institutionalized" racism?
  • There is, but I don't mind shortening this. - Dank (push to talk)
• "... flew 20 combat missions before his F4U Corsair aircraft was shot down on a remote mountaintop ..." -- Surely his plane was shot down over the mountaintop. If he was on it at the time, he wouldn't have been shot down.
  • Stet. It's a common phrase meaning that's where his plane landed; "he was shot down and crashed into a remote mountaintop" is unnecessarily wordy when there's a handy shorthand. - Dank (push to talk)
    • When I hear "shot down", generally I think of the actual shooting and not the crash landing, hence the over. In this case, "shot down and crashed on a mountaintop behind enemy lines" or something similar may be okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I went with "came under fire and crashed on a remote mountaintop". - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• "... inspirational successes..." -- Inspirational according to?
  • I've deleted "inspirational". - Dank (push to talk)

Education

• This should be in American English, so I'd write football instead of American football.
  • Not sure what the consensus is on this. - Dank (push to talk)
    • WP:Commonality - American football is preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Sounds good.
• department store should probably not be linked (common word)
• Same with Boxcar and dry cleaner
  • Some of these common words are really common only in AmE - "boxcar", for example, is usually "van" in BrE. In such cases, linking is helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Scratched boxcar.
      • I'm leaving the linking issues for others per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I think all the links are there. —Ed!^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Do you mean you think they are okay there? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Brown enlisted in the US Naval Reserve on 8 July 1946 and was admitted to the aviation program, becoming a Seaman Apprentice in the US Navy and a member of the school's Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, giving him a USD50 stipend each month and allowing him to quit his jobs and complete his architectural engineering degree in 1947." -- A little bit of a run on. This should probably be split into two sentences.
  • Agreed.
• "...but only 14 out of over 5,600 NROTC students in 1947 were Negroes." -- As far as I remember, Negroes is considered outdated in modern American parlance. A different word, perhaps?
  • Agreed.

Military career

• Is linking trainer aircraft necessary?
  • It's a consistency thing with aircraft. We link fighter aircraft, fighter bomber, transport aircraft etc to help distinguish what type of aircraft is being mentioned. —Ed!^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I doubt an in-depth understanding of the craft type is necessary here, but for consistency's sake... Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure on this, but I think Life Magazine should be either Life magazine or Life Magazine; I don't recall Magazine being part of the title
  • Leaving this for the sourcing experts. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right. I fixed it. —Ed!^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Korean war

• "... these efforts alone did not stop the North Korean Army juggernaut on its southern advance." -- Juggernaut does not seem NPOV to me.
  • I don't see what irrational or inappropriate conclusion a reader is likely to draw from the word. I see its meaning here as situational. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I see "juggernaut" as being a near synonym to "unstoppable", which is a POV (especially since they ultimately lost). Not too major an issue though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Owing to a number of factors, the North Koreans were unstoppable at this time. That's the opinion of the sources. Later, they were stoppable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.
• Is linking aircraft carrier, battleship, and cruiser necessary?
  • Once again, these links provide a more specific designator of the types of ships he served on. I've worked with ship articles, and the standard on Wikipedia seems to be including links to help the layman understand the nature of the ships more easily, since their names don't really help explain what kinds of ships they are. —Ed!^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Per above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Death

• Is linking executive officer, helicopter, fire extinguisher necessary?
  • I tend to think so, as executive officer is uncommon military jargon, helicopter is another aircraft designator, and fire extinguisher may go by other terms internationally. —Ed!^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd question helicopter being linked, as it is fairly ubiquitous. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "... at 14:40 Koenig radioed to Brown that he appeared to be trailing fuel." -- Local time, UTC? Also, the he is ambiguous here... I first read it as meaning Koenig.
  • Ed!, if you add a time zone, don't add it here, add it to 13:38 above. I don't have a preference on the second "he" ... there's a lot of disagreement over the best way to say "he told him that he ..." or "he told him that his ...". - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Right, 13:38. Sorry, missed that.
      • Clarified Korea Standard Time. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "15-degree weather" -- Convert template please
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Hudner attempted in vain to rescue Brown, before intentionally crash landing his aircraft to attempt to pull Brown from the burning wreck before running to Brown's side and attempting to wrestle him free from the wreck." -- Repetition. Perhaps "Hudner attempted in vain to rescue Brown, intentionally crash landing his aircraft, running to Brown's side, and attempting to wrestle him free from the wreck."
  • I can't get an image for what it means to attempt unsuccessfully to rescue Brown. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • From his account, it sounds like Hudner was trying to radio Brown through some kind of post-crash checklist so that he could get himself out of the aircraft, but since Brown was in trouble, Hudner crashed his own aircraft. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Is it more explicit in the source? If it is, an explanation to that effect would be really useful. It would make it clearer that there were two attempts. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "... likely due to heavy air presence of Brown and Hudner's unit." -- Feels like we're missing a "the" here
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice read and I agree that it's inspiring, but we cannot editorialize. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your edits. I've reverted two of the punctuation edits; please see WP:Checklist#appositive, and I've removed the semicolons in "Daisy Brown Thorne (who had remarried), Pamela Brown, and Hudner, who gave a dedication." - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that "to an impoverished family" is an apositive. If the wording were "Born to an impoverished family in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, ..." then the comma after "family" would seem quite out of place. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:Checklist#appositive links to the talk page with WT:Checklist has citations to style guides that support a comma after the appositive "Mississippi". It's a little complicated, and it's true that the comma is omitted more and more often, but I'd prefer that writers use it since most of the style guides are still recommending it and since the omission affects the meaning in a few sentences. I'd definitely prefer that reviewers not insist on removing it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Right. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm leaning support now, just a few minor things. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
            • I think I've responded to everything. Let me know if I missed anything. —Ed!^(talk) 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• "further to the north": if the source says "outside the South" or similar, then I think that's the best way to put it.
  • Done, while linking to Southern United States for clarity. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "There, his enlistment ended 15 April and Brown reverted to the rank of midshipman, becoming the only African American in the program.": I'm not following.
  • Brown's enlistment ended and he ceased to be an active US Navy member and became a full-time midshipman (a pseudo-rank similar to cadet) and as such, he was the only midshipman at that training school. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "At this point, he could reveal his marriage to his superiors.": This would work better combined with the last sentence of the paragraph.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Brown crashed into a bowl-shaped valley at approximately 40°36′N 127°06′E": I don't think it's the best use of everyone's time to have an argument about icons and pictographs in running text every time they come up. I'll raise the subject at WT:MIL and see if we can get some answers.
  • Yeah, I had no idea to do with that or how to form it into a sentence or footnote. I wasn't sure if it would be OR to say it was near some landmark or something. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think that would be OR, and Dschwen has removed the icon (although it still shows up on just this page for me for some reason!) As long as the icon's gone, I'd say "near (nearest town) (at 40°36′N 127°06′E)". But I can support the way you have it, too. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, contingent on addressing my and Crisco's few remaining points. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me know if there are any more fixes. Thanks for your review and your copy edits! —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Augustinian theodicy

Nominator(s): ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I created this article in September 2011 and I think it is now ready to be considered. It was peer reviewed in Sepetmber, became a Good Article in December and was peer reviewed again at the start of this month. It has also received a copy edit from Accedie and was briefly reviewed recently by Quadell at his talk page. I now feel that it is ready for a Featured Article nomination, and am happy to make any necessary changes suggested. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: No dead links, WebCited the four external links. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I've wanted to participate in a philosophical FAC for a while! Good work on nominating this. I've got a few suggestions, which probably aren't necessary changes (nor, of course, are they sufficient ).

• Firstly, the grammar of the name. I haven't read the original sources, but the article currently talks of Augustinian theodicy (and the partnering article on Irenaean theodicy) in gramatically the same way one refers to, say, "Christian theology" or "French cheese". Except there's some inconsistency. In the first paragraph of the 'Outline' section, Hick is referred to differently from in the paragraph in the sub-section of Outline entitled 'Evidential problem of evil'. In this, it is referred to as "The Augustinian theodicy". A minor quibble, perhaps, but stylistically it reads a bit strangely and inconsistently. It is perhaps slightly odd, as the philosopher in me wants to say, "well, what is this thing exactly?" A theodicy is basically an argument, so perhaps, strictly logically it ought to be Augustine's theodicy, like, oh, Wittgenstein's private language argument or the Gettier problem. Perhaps they do things differently in theology, I don't know. Don't let me bully you in to my preference, go with what the sources say.
• "Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" - I'm not sure identified is the right word here. As an argument, the first person we know identified the Augustinian theodicy was hopefully St Augustine. What exactly did Hick do? Clearly reconstruct the argument and identify it to Augustine? (In much the same way various arguments have been reconstructed in the form of, say, the form of modal logic and read back into the literature.)
• "Augustinian theodicy can be distinguished by its attempt to maintain the goodness of God despite the occurrence of evil in the world" → distinguished from what?
• "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's nature of existence" → This could perhaps be better phrased. It doesn't call into question the nature of God's existence. I'm not sure what that means. The evidential problem of evil challenges theists to accept either that God doesn't exist or that the thing they call God doesn't all his divine attributes. If you are willing to concede some divine attributes, then you don't need to concede on existence; conceding to the evidential problem of evil doesn't necessarily require you to question the nature of God's existence—the atheist can say "well, if God exists, then he has the relevant attributes that theists say he has, but given the evidential problem of evil, I don't believe God exists because the evidence of evil makes me call into question the compatibility of those attributes." Omitting the words "nature of" might do it, but that doesn't really nail it, does it? You could say something like "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's existence or God's nature", but that's a bit clumsy.
• The discussion of Calvin in the lead might be a bit too much: noting that Calvin's view of soteriology differs from St Augustine isn't necessary for understanding the theodicy and probably ought to be omitted from the lead, even if it is an interesting thing to discuss later in the article.
• "Scientific implications" → good name for the section? Not sure. It's really a scientifically-derived critique rather than a discussion of the scientific implications.
• Is Augustinian theodicy taken up a plausible theodicy by non-Christian philosophers/theologians? To say that something is a Christian theodicy has two possible meanings: either that it is a theodicy only available to Christians (perhaps if a theodicy appealed specifically to specific doctrines of Christian faith) or that it has been primarily used by Christians. Often the Islamic philosophers reuse and extend philosophical arguments from those who went before: it'd be interesting to know if there is any development of Augustine's theodicy in the Islamic world.
• There are some philosophical texts that are pretty well-respected on the problem of evil that are missing, but I don't know if that's because they are duplicating other sources. The work of MM Adams for one. Howard-Snyder's "The Evidential Problem of Evil". There's probably some other contemporary philosophical work that the article might be missing, but theodicy isn't my area of interest.
• In the section on Plantinga, it might be useful to cite Plantinga directly and perhaps some of the contemporary literature on Plantinga's FWD even if Plantinga's FWD isn't a theodicy but a defense against the logical problem of evil. (My personal biases might be showing here: my Ph.D is on Plantinga's later work.)
• In the references section, Michael Tooley's Stanford Encyclopedia article is included twice as separate references.
• Otherwise the references look at first glance to be pretty good.

Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Tom. I'll reply in the order that you gave them.

• Fixed - it now consistently uses 'the Augustinian theodicy'.
• Reworded identification & added a little extra to clarify.
• Clarified.
• That was a mistake in the first place - it was supposed to be God's nature or existence; I've fixed that.
• Renamed the section.
• I had looked for non-Christian views and had found little. I will have another look and tell you what I find.
• Thank you for the sources - I will have a look and include anything which can better source what's already there.
• I'll have a look for something directly from Plantinga.
• Tooley is referenced twice because the two references point to different sections on the page. What would you recommend here?

As I said, thank you very much for your comments. I'll get back to you on the last few things ASAP. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I still cannot find any non-Christian views; it seems to me that this is a Christian-only theodicy. Islam theology has alternative interpretations of The Fall, but nothing specifically related to Augustine's interpretation; most Jewish theodicy seems to be post-Holocaust, and Maimonides had little to do with Augustine, from what I can gather. I have found Howard-Snyder's work and used it and have directed referenced Plantinga, as you suggested. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed this at FAC and took a look. One thing instantly stands out to me: the lead looks disproportionately big for the article. The whole page is 3,000 words, but the lead alone is 500 of them. So a 500 word lead for 2,500 words of text is 1/5 of the size! I find it hard to believe the lead needs to be so long..? --Lobo (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll have a look at shortening it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've condensed the second two paragraphs of the lead, which were making it so long. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's looking much better, good work. --Lobo (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Brief comment: I notice "Hell" is capitalised throughout, but "heaven" isn't. Since the two are opposites, shouldn't both be capitalised (or not)? Auree ^★★ 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right - I have capitalised Heaven where it occurs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• FN 5 and similar: why omit Russell?
• Green 2010 or 2011?
• Generally encyclopedias, even if online, are italicized
• Be consistent in whether Augustine's works are cited to Augustine of Hippo or simply Augustine
• FN 41: page(s)?
• Murphy & Ellis or Ellis & Murphy?
• No citations to Bush 1991, Engel 2007. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all of that, thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comment on prose, no comment on comprehensiveness:

• The lead is quite good. One query: "those who choose the salvation of Jesus Christ" Is "choose" the optimal choice of words here? It seems a bit odd in this context.
• "The Augustinian theodicy was first distinguished as a form of theodicy by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love, written in 1966, in which he classified Augustine's theodicy and its subsequent developments as Augustinian." Not sure, but would it be better to put "Augustinian" between quotation marks, as it's introduced as a certain classification.
• "Hick distinguished between Augustinian-style theodicy, which is based on free will, and Irenaean theodicy, which sees God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits." "Augustine-style" theodicy yet simply "Irenaean" theodicy?
• "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin, with the Augustinian theologians arguing that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings." With + noun + -ing constructions are generally depreciated: suggest "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin; Augustinian theologians argue that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings."
• "based on the writing of Saint Paul, as well as his interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis." Whose interpretation? Saint Paul's or Augustine's? Needs clarification
• "Aquinas believed that evil is only acceptable because of the good that comes from it, and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good required the occurrence of the evil." required → requires? Also, you could lose the first "only".
• "He argued that God's grace is irresistible and will consequently be accepted and persevered in by those he chooses to bestow with it." "persevered in by"? Also, you could lose the "consequently" here.
• "Italian theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria criticised Augustine's conception of evil." "Conception"? Should that be "concept"?
• "does everything within his power to bring about good" "bring about" seems like informal wording.
• "He went on to propose that, even in a world where humans have significant free will, their actions may be predictable enough that God would be unable to create a world in which a significantly free agent would do something unpredictable." Could benefit from some tweaking for brevity and clarity.
• "By simply arguing that the coexistence of God and evil are logically possible, Platinga did not present a theodicy, but a defence. He did not attempt to demonstrate that his proposition is true or plausible, just that it is logically possible. Consequently, Plantinga's argument is an answer to the logical problem of evil, whereas Augustine's attempt to show that the existence of God remains probable is a response to the evidential problem of evil with which he dealt." This reads as editorial opinion to me... needs attribution.
• I've made some (mostly minor) edits myself, please check.
• Watch out for redundancies such as "therefore", "moreover", "consequently", "subsequently", and "thus": most of these are no more than cumbersome supplements to the text and are generally unneeded. I removed some but others remain. Auree ^★★ 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed "choose" to "choose to accept".
• I've put quotation marks around the second mention of Augustinian, where it is a direct quote.
• I've changed "Augustinian-style" to "Augustinian".
• I've made the change you suggest.
• Swapped the two round to remove ambiguity.
• Fixed.
• Removed "consequently" and changed the order of the sentence.
• Done.
• Changed to "achieve".
• Rephrased for brevity.
• Reworded to attribute the opinion to the source.
• Your changes look ok, thank you.
• I've removed the redundancies I could find.

Thanks for your comments. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your changes are great, thanks. This was a very interesting and educational read to me, but I know very little about the subject matter. As such I'm afraid I cannot go beyond reviewing the prose -- which, in my opinion, now meets the FA criterion, so I'll switch to support on that. Nice work and good luck! Auree ^★★ 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. The last nomination, in June 2011, failed due to lack of consensus and a few actionable objections. Since the start of the last FAC I have addressed these issues raised:

• Fixed formatting issues in the links
• Removed or clarified dubiously licensed media
• Reduced the length of the lead
• Reduced the length of the history section and also reduced the perceived overweight on the 1990-present period
• Modified the text in the lead and demographics concerning Hutu/Tutsi/Twa, to try to clarify the categorisation  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Well done in bringing this article back to FAC. Can I just briefly comment on a couple of details in the infobox? You include two items: "Gini (2003) 41.1 (medium)" and "HDI (2011) 0.429 (166th)". Neither of these measures are mentioned in the text and the first is not cited anywhere. In my view, if these are important measures they should be introduced and explained in the text, otherwise they should be omitted. And if included the sources must be cited. The present links from the infobox on Gini and HDI are of little use, as they go to articles which in my view very few readers will want to take time to read and understand. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just spot-checked several articles on other developing countries, and Gini and HDI are included in the infobox on all of them. These measures are also not discussed in the body of the article in the examples I looked at. They're very important measures and anyone who's involved in international development knows what they are. Your statement that the average reader may not be interested enough to find out what they mean could be applied to probably 99% of the information on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we take it out. It should be available in the case that people wish to educate themselves. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, but if as you say these are "very important measures", why are they not discussed in the text? Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia article, not something written just for those involved in international development. You cannot simply disregard the bulk of the encyclopedia's readers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody's talking about disregarding the bulk of the readers. This seems to be a question of precedent. Like I said, I haven't seen the Gini or HDI routinely discussed in other articles on developing countries, and I don't really know what more can be said in the body of the article without either simply repeating the number or going into an explanation of what these indices mean (which is what the linking is for). Many of the points contained in the text box are not discussed in the text. It's meant to be a brief collection of important information where elaboration is more or less unnecessary. Calling code number, what side people drive on etc. What would you want to see in the body of the article related to the HDI or Gini beyond simply restating the figures, and without providing an inevitably lengthy definition of the indices? Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would expect to see a brief explanation of what GNI indicates, and how the Rwanda measure relates to those of other developing countries. Likewise for HDI, though that is a little clearer given that you have added a ranking. Nothing elaborate is required, but basic identification of terms should not require the use of links. The fact that other articles don't do this is to their detriment and is not an advisable precedent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is in pretty good shape, but the article is missing a section that is in most other FA level articles on countries (such as Australia), some of it seems to put an unduly positive spin on the country and I have concerns over sourcing. In particular:
  • The article doesn't have equivalent sections on 'Foreign relations and military'

• Foreign relations is subsumed within the section on Politics and Government, and I find it appropriately covered for the summary style of a country article. I agree that something should be briefly mentioned about the military. If there are main articles on military or foreign relations in Rwanda, these could be linked at the top of the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates#Sections, Foreign relations and military is not a required section for a country article. This reflects the best consensus that could be reached following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Templates. Also, Cameroon, an FA which I used as a loose template for Rwanda does not have FR/M. As Lemurbaby says Foreign relations is somewhat covered by Politics. I could add a sentence or two about Military if you think that's important, but not convinced it merits more than that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The history section doesn't mention Rwanda's central role throughout the war in Congo during the 1990s and 2000s (aka the 'Great War of Africa'), and this is brushed over in the 'Politics and government' section.

• I agree, it would be good to add a sentence or two touching on the genocide's repercussions in terms of refugee flow and its role in sparking the war in Congo. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "the country's Human Development Index grew by 3.3%, the largest increase of any country" - is this meaningful? Given the results of the genocide, I imagine that its HDI would have been very low to start with, so it's probably not difficult to grow quickly.

• This is meaningful, as Rwanda has been consistently growing more rapidly than most other countries in the entire world (the genocide was 17 years ago so it's no longer just about recovering from that). I'd recommend helping put the country's economic strength into perspective by including some info related to the EDPRS progress report that was just released, showing Rwanda not only continues to be one of the best performing countries in Africa, but has also reduced inequalities in wealth distribution over the past 10 years (really exceptional). Read this. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • It seems a bit of a stretch to say that what's apparently the 66th least corrupt out of 180 countries "has low corruption levels". Transparency International ranks Rwanda's corruption at 4.0 on a scale where 0 is the most corrupt and 10 the least.

• This can be corrected by putting it into context: "Low corruption levels relative to most other African countries" - and then retaining all the same stats to let people draw their own conclusions about what they suggest for Rwanda's corruption levels relative to the larger world. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have followed Lemurbaby's suggestion here. Let me know if it cuts the mustard...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That helps. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption." - this is referenced directly to the constitition. Does this position actually exist in practice, and is it effective?

• The reference to the sentence after that links to a BBC article talking about the man appointed as Ombudsman, so it exists. How effective they are would be difficult to say objectively - I think the way Amakuru has written it by simply stating facts without including assessments of that kind is appropriately objective. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's an eight year old news story. Does the position still exist? Has the requirement that politicians declare their wealth it talked about being introduced actually been obeyed in practice since then? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it does. they have a facebook page, and a website here. Corruption really isn't a major issue in Rwanda, unlike most other African countries. It's remarkably easy to get things done in this country. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK excellent, and that's probably a better source than the old news story. Transparency International appears to have quite a bit on Rwanda on their website as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "The economy has since strengthened, with per-capita GDP (PPP) estimated at $1,284 in 2011,[3] compared with $416 in 1994" - is this adjusted for inflation?

• The source document should include that information. Since it's IMF I would expect it has been adjusted. I don't believe this kind of detail typically included in the infobox, but if you've found examples that show otherwise, please let us know here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The unequivocal statement that "The press is tightly restricted and newspapers routinely self-censor to avoid government reprisals." seems ill at ease with the earlier statements that the anti-democratic nature of the government is merely 'alleged' and 'claimed' by various NGOs. It would be better to just state that Rwanda is a limited (at best) democracy rather than present these as being merely criticisms. I believe that a number of foreign governments have also criticised the Rwandan government in recent years, so the NGOs aren't alone.

• I can't agree with you here. That would be "taking sides" in a contentious debate. It's important that the neutrality of the encyclopedia be preserved. There are plenty of reasons the Rwandan government gives for restricting the press and other typical features of democracy. Restriction of press does not necessarily mean the government is anti-democratic. Democratization in a country like this is a process and given the potentially lethal consequences of allowing freedom of speech and total political liberty (as the Rwandan experience clearly demonstrates), being cautious about when and how to open those doors may reflect more prudence than any intrinsically anti-democratic sentiment. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article doesn't present this as being a debate: quite the opposite in fact. There's lots of material stating as fact that Rwanda is a democracy with all kinds of functioning institutions, and the material arguing that this isn't quite the case is presented as only being 'claims'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Whether Rwanda has a democratic system of government (in the political science sense of the term) is not debatable, since that is the form of government established by the constitution. It does have all kinds of functioning institutions, as well. (Is there a particular reason why you might think it doesn't?) The debate I'm referring to is over whether the government should open up control of the media and political opposition. It's correct to present critiques (and praise) as claims as long as objective and credible statistics are not available to back them up. I don't know whether the debate here should be presented in any more detail than Amakuru has already done, by indicating at several points the type of critiques made by outside parties. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Human Rights Watch is pretty scathing of Rwanda's democratic credentials: [6] (eg, "the government failed to fulfill its professed commitment to democracy" due to the suppression of the political opposition prior to the presidential election). This is a more recent source that what was quoted from HRW in the article, and presents a much stronger set of criticisms than what's attributed to the organisation. I note that Amnesty International has raised similar concerns: [7], and Freedom House rates Rwanda as 'not free': [8]. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose due to my concerns about the article's neutrality and problems with sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Amakuru mentioned some of these criticisms in the article, so I don't understand why you feel it is non-neutral. What specifically would you expect to see (i.e. what can Amakuru correct) so that you no longer have these concerns about neutrality and sourcing? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article should state what the actual status of the country's political system is rather than just describe the theoretical constitutional arrangements while presenting the reality as being 'claims' from NGOs (for instance, the article states that "Rwanda is a presidential unitary republic, based upon a multi-party system", while the above reports make it clear that opposition political parties are being actively suppressed by the government). There appears to be a gap between theory and practice here which the article isn't picking up. I think that the sourcing issues are pretty clear (more up to date sources need to be used, the problems with the following material need to be fixed and the travel guides need to be replaced with something more reliable). This article isn't ready for FA status at present I'm afraid, and I really don't say that lightly as it does have a lot to recommend it and it's obvious that a lot of effort has gone into it, so I hope that the above isn't coming across as being too harsh (I know from personal experience how tough it is to write FA level articles on 'big' topics, especially those concerning non-English speaking developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nick, thanks for your detailed comments and for taking the time to look the article over. I would like to make a few points in defence of the way things are structured at present.
• Firstly, AFAIK the constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to detail these institutions in the article and present their existence as verified fact.
• Regarding the HRW and other reports, it is quite correct to give those the time of day, because they are there, they are part of the lexicon of Rwanda, there may be some truth in then, and we should make the reader aware of what those reports say. However, if the article is to remain NPOV, it *cannot* present those as facts, because they are strictly allegations. An alternative view and some inconsistencies in HRW's own line is presented in this article from a Ugandan newspaper.[9] Also, and slightly separate from the question of whether things are free and fair, is the question of whether the government really is the one wanted by the people. In most dictatorships that would be a definite no. But in Rwanda it's not so clear. For example, in this Guardian piece it opines that Kagame "Kagame could win this presidential election without campaigning". So, if that is to be believed, the most favoured person won the election and democracy prevailed.
• Anyway, the bottom line for me is that if the article comes across as non-neutral then that is certainly unintentional (I personally am extremely agnostic on the question of whether democracy really prevails in Rwanda and am no closer to an answer even after many years living there; interestingly when I once showed the article to a Rwandan he was horrified at the perceived bias *against* the government). And if you and others feel that more article space should be given to detailing the allegations of the human rights organisations, conditions applied to sentences such as the multi-party one etc, or some kind of more rigorous presentation of the "debate" then I would be happy to try to work those in. What I would not support is statements saying categorically that the institutions don't work or that the country is an out-and-out dictatorship because that really would be presenting just one side of the debate. Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that we're going to have to disagree then, I'm afraid. Those organisations are among the real heavyweights of the NGO world, and they all say basically the same thing in regards to the suppression of the political opposition in recent years, so it's well beyond 'allegations'. My suggested approach is that you describe the theoretical structure of the country's political structure alongside a discussion of what things are like on the ground. This would be in line with the approach used in the the (very) broadly comparable FAs Belarus, Cameroon and Chad. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh well, thanks for your reply and I will certainly take your comments on board and see (in the next week or two) if the politics section can be structured in a way that addresses your concerns. Where there are sources presenting evidence of the theory not meeting the practice I will make sure they get the time of day simultaneous with the description of the theory, for example on the multi-party point. Whether this is enough to satisfy your objections I have no idea, but hopefully it will be a useful exercise anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nick-D, have you found any evidence in the reports you cite that refute Amakuru's statement "constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated"? As someone who lives here, speaks with Rwandese people on a daily basis, follows Rwandan news and interacts with various bodies of Rwandan government to do my job, I find Amakuru has summed up the reality of government here perfectly. Rwanda is considered a gem in Africa for its exemplary transparency, efficacy and relatively low corruption. If you've found claims to the contrary I would love to read them. If not, it would be helpful to hone in on what the real issue is. Right now I see you talk about the (entire) article lacking neutrality when as far as I can tell the issue is just in the political section. And within the political section the main issue I see you bringing up is the concerns that NGOs and governments have about the Rwandan government's silencing of opposition figures. Democracy as a form of government and freedom of speech do not have to go hand in hand the way they do in the American vision of democracy as a larger social concept. People vote, the elections are considered fairly transparent, people are generally satisfied with who's in power (as Amakuru said, Kagame is very popular because he's getting things done). There is a growing sense of frustration in Kigali at least regarding limits on freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a functioning multi-party democracy (some of the candidates elected belong to other parties than the RPF, though they may not be considered "opposition" parties). Local opinion about the silencing of opposition figures is mixed; most often these people are removed from the political scene by jailing them because they frame their political platform in terms of ethnicity, which is illegal here now (something like "promoting genocide ideology"). For its part, the position of the government here is that the NGOs and foreign governments that are pressuring it to allow more freedom of speech (i.e. to talk about these historic "ethnic"/caste divisions and, especially, to use them as a basis for political campaigning) are failing to understand that this could open a can of worms that could spark another bout of violence. The government also raises the point that such criticism coming from Western sources that failed to take any action to protect the genocide victims 18 years ago comes across as highly hypocritical. So if this kind of information is going to be included in greater detail in the article, I think it would need to include both sides in specific regard to the limits on freedom of speech and government opposition - the NGOs'/foreign governments' concerns, and the Rwandese government's justification for their actions. Do you agree that a short paragraph touching on these points would be adequate to address your concerns? Do you agree that the article adequately and appropriately covers the structure of government and reflects reality on the ground in terms of functioning (politically) democratic institutions, which allow multi-party competition (but may limit "opposition" groups)? Especially if the issue of opposition groups is discussed in the new paragraph concerning the debate around freedom of speech and political opposition? I'm trying to get to the specifics of the content you'd like to see added and addressed to feel satisfied with the neutrality of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Are more recent figures for income earned from tourism available than those from 2008?
  • The source for the statement that "Despite the Genocide, the country is increasingly perceived internationally as a safe destination; 980,577 people visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" doesn't state that the country is seen as being a safe destination (though I believe that this is true). It also notes that only 4.9 percent of this travel was actually holiday tourism (a reduction on the level the year before) and business travel was the most common reason people visited the country, so this material doesn't fit well in a discussion of tourism in Rwanda.
  • The statement that "Rural to urban migration, which was very low before 1994, now stands at 4.2% per year." needs a reference.
  • I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on travel guides for sourcing (particularly Briggs & Booth 2006) Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    The problem with a topic like Rwanda (and I think you're aware of this, as you alluded to it above), is that compared with topics relating to "Western" countries there is very little published material regarding it. Furthermore, what published material there is is overwhelmingly regarding the 1994 Genocide, with far less on other aspects of the country. As someone who has spent some time living in the country, I know many facts that are not written down in any internationally verifiable location. Obviously my knowledge of these facts alone, being essentially original research, cannot permit them to enter Wikipedia. Per WP:V, that makes them true facts but not verifiable facts. However, when those facts also appear in a travel guide, written by someone with knowledge of the country, and published by a reputable publisher, that should give them the sufficient level of verifiability required.

    I have not seen a guideline on Wikipedia that printed travel guides should not be used as sources, and when it comes down to it they are probably at least as accurate as newspaper articles published in the New York Times etc, which are explicitly permitted as sources.

    Having said all the above, I will certainly have another look at the Briggs/Booth refs and see if any of them might be source-able elsewhere. If so then great, but if not, I wouldn't support removing material that is of use in gaining a complete understanding of the country, just because the only way to verify it is through the travel guide. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    • Yes, I appreciate that sourcing will be limited for this topic, and allowances do need to be made . Travel guides are problematic as sources for FA level articles as they're not (and obviously don't aspire to be) scholarly-type works, and probably weren't fact checked before going to press. I note that you've managed to get the number of references to the travel guide down a lot, but it should be possible to make further replacements (for instance, reference 52 on the constitution). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

      I take your point about reliability and fact checking, and we should set a high bar, although a counterargument would be that the vast majority of sources used across WP are non-scholarly in nature. I particular, newspaper articles, which are explicitly allowed if they are from a reputable paper, are probably no more fact checked than a guidebook, likely less so as once written they tend to stand unedited for ever, whereas guidebooks update themselves revision by revision as reader feedback comes to light.

      Anyway, re the reduction of the Briggs/Booth refs, that is a work in progress - I did the History section last night, but then it was getting kind of late so I shut down the 'puter without looking at others further down the article. Hopefully will do more on that tonight.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, if the outstanding issues Nick-D raised above are addressed. I'm living in Rwanda currently and working in development here, so I can speak to the accuracy, scope and neutrality of the article, which is very well-written. Nibiza, Amakuru! Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, Amakuru, you might want to try some of these resources to help clarify in the article some of the points that Nick-D has raised: the 2010 CPIA for governance, transparency and budget management; the 2012 MCA scorecard for control of corruption and institutional effectiveness; the DFID FRA from June 2011 for fiduciary responsibility. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I will look into those. Hope to have a bit of time to work on this shortly; I'm almost done with the Briggs & Booth referencing now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Older nominations

Bastion (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Back again, this time with the indie video game darling of 2011! Bastion is a GA, been copyedited by me several times over the past month, has its refs archived, has image rationales and alt text, and overall feels up to the level of my other video game FAs. Thanks for reviewing and showing me how wrong (or right) I am! --PresN 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: PresN. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: I read through the article a few weeks back and thought it was pretty complete/well written. I have a few comments and suggestions on the prose though:
• There is a lot of "the game" in the first couple paragraphs, if you can think of a good way to cut a couple out that might be a good idea.
• "a team of seven people split between a house in Los Angeles and New York." I'd suggest "split between houses in..." here.
• In the Gameplay section you start two consecutive sentences with "Levels", I suggest rephrasing there.
• "the shrine lets the player choose idols of the gods to mock, causing the enemies to become stronger while giving increased experience points and currency." Who receives the currency that is given here? (I assume the player, but it might be good to clarify.)
• "destroying a certain number of objects with it within a given time" I'd suggest avoiding the "with it within" if you can think of a good way to avoid it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Responses:
• Wow, I really did, didn't I. Done.
• Dropped the "house" bit from the lead- the idea was 5 in a house in LA, while Korb and Cunningham lived and worked in NYC. Spelled out in the dev section.
• Done.
• Done.
• Done.

--PresN 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, fixes look good. I made a few more copyedits. Here're a few more comments:
• Do you think "courses designed to test the player's skills with the weapons" would be an improvement over "courses designed to test the player's abilities at using the weapons"?
• "sets off for the titular Bastion, where everyone was supposed to go in troubled times." Should this be "was" or "is"?
• "who had worked for the Caelondians in building a weapon intended to destroy the Ura completely to prevent another war." This feels a bit wordy to me, trying to think of a good way to tighten it.
• "The original idea was based around the idea..." I suggest rephrasing to remove the "idea... idea" here.
• "a way to provide background details and depth to the world without having the player read long strings of text" Maybe "requiring" or something more specific than "having" here.
• "A playable version of the game was debuted at the" Do we need the "was" here? (I honestly don't know.)
• " A playable version of the game was debuted at the September 2010 Penny Arcade Expo, where it was well received, and after a strong showing at the March 2011 Game Developers Conference, Warner Bros. signed on to publish and distribute the game." I suggest splitting this into two sentences. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, done.
• Is sounds wrong to my ear, possibly because the "everyone" in question is dead, and so are past tense.
• Tried chopping the sentence in half.
• Idea->premise
• Used requiring
• "debuted" makes the game the actor, while "was debuted" makes the dev team the implicit actor; I'd prefer to leave it as "was"
• Done.

--PresN 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for clearing those up for me. I'll try to remember that one about debuted for future reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, these are the last of the notes I made about the article, made a few more copyedits:
• ""Build" features the voice of Ashley Barrett, "Mother" that of Korb, and "Set Sail" of both." Is there a good way to rephrase the last part? It sounds a bit awkward, but it could just be me.
• "The musical style of the soundtrack has been described by Korb as "acoustic frontier trip hop"." This may be an MOS linking violation.
• Watch out for the overuse of "while". I just noticed it twice in this sentence: "Each structure serves a different purpose; for example, the distillery lets the player select upgrades, while the shrine lets the player choose idols of the gods to mock, causing the enemies to become stronger while giving the player increased experience points and currency."
• "Bastion was released to a strong reception. The game sold over 500,000 copies during 2011, 200,000 of which were for the Xbox Live Arcade.[37][38] Bastion received generally strong reviews." It almost feels to me like you're trying to fit two different topic sentences in one paragraph here, maybe try to combine them? Maybe something like: "Bastion was released to strong sales and critical reviews."?
• "The game has won several awards, beginning prior to publication." is "beginning" dangling here? I read it a couple times and I'm not sure.
• Leaning to support, will probably read through the article again just to be sure I didn't miss anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rephrased.
• It is, delinked.
• Hmm, "highlight all" definitely shows a bunch of "while" clumps. Replaced about half of them- something for me to watch out for in the future.
• Done.
• Reworked to avoid the issue.

--PresN 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, you're quick with the fixes! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm back again, a few more comments:
• "and went on to win and be nominated for awards at the 2011 Independent Games Festival and Electronic Entertainment Expo prior to release." This sentence has been bothering me a bit. Could it be clarified here whether it was nominated and awards won at both or was nominated at one and won at the other?
• Just noticed that in the first paragraph of Gameplay you start three sentences in a row with "The player". Also you use "the player" a lot in that section, though I guess it would be hard not to. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Levels contain many different environment types, including cities, forests, and bogs." Do you think bog is uncommon enough to be linked, or should that stay unlinked?
• "At any point in the game, the player can choose between at most two regular levels." I'm not sure about the "at most two" phrase, perhaps "one or two" would be better?
• "Rucks' narration while the Kid travels reveals that he had previously told Zia that the Bastion had the ability to somehow fix the Calamity" Who does "he" refer to here? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "They also wanted to forgo a map system, and felt that having the ground come up to the player allowed them to easily see without a map where they had been or not been in a level." I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this, it might just be me though.
• "To avoid slowing the pace of the action-oriented gameplay, they had the narrator mainly speak in short, evocative phrases, with long pauses between speaking parts." I'd avoid "they" here, probably better to state "the team" or something.
• "An early version of the game was shown at the March 2010 Game Developers Conference, to little acclaim. A playable version of the game was debuted at the September 2010 Penny Arcade Expo, where it was well received." Maybe note that the first version was unplayable?
• "Of the presentation elements, the story was the least praised; though several reviewers such as Noble enjoyed it, saying that it "just gets better the further you delve into it," Ryan Scott of GameSpy termed it a "just-sorta-there plot" and Greg Miller said that it "could have been better" and never "hooked" him." This is a sorta long sentence, I suggest breaking it up.
• "and Scott called it enjoyable, though not challenging." Just checking, is this a paraphrase or did you forget to put quotation marks?
• A few sentences in the last couple paragraphs are pretty long, but that may just be a preference issue on my part.
• Alright, I think that's the last of my comments. I'm poised to support pending the resolution of these last few comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done.
• Removed the repetition; not much I can do about "the player" appearing all over.
• I'd leave it unlinked.
• Done.
• Reworked.
• The pronouns were a bit ambiguous, reworked.
• Done.
• Sure, done.
• Broken up.
• Quotes for two of the words; he used the words enjoyable and challenging in the review, but not that phrase.
• There's nothing there I'm bothered about, but if anyone else also feels that they're too long I'll go ahead and rearrange things.

--PresN 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, all the issues I could find have been resolved and I'm happy to Support this article's promotion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the resolution of File:Bastion screenshot.png is too high at 960x540, particularly in a lossless png format. And yet, the image size on the article is too small at default preferences (220px wide) and I can hardly make out any detail. I also think you can pick out a better screenshot, showing more enemies, action and colour. The narration was by far the most well received and original part of the game, it would be useful to have an audio snippet. I'm not sure how well this would work without the accompanying action, I'm not sure about whether our non-free guidelines rules out video, but even voice alone would convey the tone of the game and story. - hahnchen 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Got an image that's smaller and more colorful, and bumped up the in-article size. Will see about an audio snippet. --PresN 20:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed it at GAN and now believe it meets the FA criteria. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't need to bracket ellipses unless there's another ellipsis in the original source
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removed all brackets from quotes that did not contain ellipsis in the first place.
• The Giant Bomb piece is written by Jeff Gerstmann, founder of the site and former editorial director of GameSpot, and the videos themselves feature him and the game developers themselves. IndieGames.com is the indie game news outlet of UBM TechWeb, which runs Gamasutra, Game Developer magazine, and the Game Developers Conference/Independent Games Festival. --PresN 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Roy Dowling

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Royal Australian Navy officer to follow on from Hector Waller, but one who survived World War II and made his major contributions afterwards, becoming Chief of Naval Staff and subsequently advancing to Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) -- sort of a poor man's Chief of Defence Force. He also seems to have been a pronounced anglophile (in contrast to his successor as Chairman COSC, Air Marshal Fred Scherger) who only reluctantly began to sever the RAN's traditional ties to Britain in favour of a more modern US-centric position. Anyway, hope you enjoy it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tiny point and possibly of no consequence but, in File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, "Commodore" Dowling appears to be wearing the sleeve insignia of a Rear-Admiral (unless RAN insignia differ from RN?). Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks Brian, it threw me at first too but then according to the caption he was Commodore 1st Class, who (at least in days gone by) could wear the sleeve insignia of a RADM... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I had two uncles who were naval officers (neither of them admirals), and I think I was prompted by their shades. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't bracket ellipses unless there are ellipses in the source
  • I recall you mentioned this during the article's A-Class Review... My response then was that the source itself used ellipses after "as you know, and" so I left them exactly as they were. Then I left a sentence or two out myself, so I bracketed the ellipses to distinguish that. As before, I've no prob altering if there's another commonly accepted style...
• Is there a comma in the Gill titles? Bibliography has one, citations don't
  • God you're a picky so-and-so -- but we wouldn't have it any other way... ;-)
• Might add a border to File:Naval_Ensign_of_Australia.svg in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You learn a new parameter every day -- tks for that suggestion, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• fn 3, 4, 7, 8, 28, 34, 41 - all okay; no close paraphrase.
  • First sentence of World War II section is not supported by source 3; use source 1 instead.
• Comments:
  • Venturous points to V and W class destroyer rather than to HMS Venturous, a red link.
  • ADB says he participated in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), but this is not in the text or infobox
  • Six days later, having been promoted to vice admiral He was promoted to vice admiral on 7 June 1955, two days before getting his gong; the text seems to imply that it was afterwards. (could just be my befuddled brain though)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - my concerns addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• This is just a copyeditor's take on the problem mentioned above with "[...]". The blockquote begins:

In the past we have depended entirely on the United Kingdom as you know, and ... would prefer to keep it that way. [...] We now find ourselves at the crossroads because we very much doubt whether the United Kingdom can provide us with what we want in the future. We have no wish to become Americans

• You're implying that readers will know that "[...]" must mean "ellipses mine" and "..." must mean "ellipses in original". But WP isn't full of punctuation expressing fine, carefully drawn distinctions, so I don't know why the readers would assume that here. One option would be simply to delete the first sentence, since it is more or less implied by the follow sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree about readers, Dank, the way I've done it was actually my interpretation of what MOS says (I could've interpreted it wrongly). I also agree one way of getting round it is simply to drop the first sentence; another is to say damn the torpedoes and put in the part I took out, since I think it was just a sentence or two. I'll re-read and think about it...
    • Looking at it again, I know why I dropped the interleaving sentences -- they weren't that interesting compared to the rest of the quote...! I agree, the first bit isn't really necessary either as we've established that point well enough beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with this all. The first sentence is actually the really the important one. Deleting it changes the whol;e meaning and makes him sound like an Australianist instead of a loyalist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • My comment was mainly about the punctuation; I don't have a preference on the wording. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (ec) Really? With a line like "For that we are not less loyal members of the Empire" as a closer...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• "were its relegation—since 1950–51—to third place": I understand you want to be accurate, but it raises some questions it doesn't answer ... would it be totally misleading to just say 1950 or 1951?
  • Well, since we're talking budget allocation, I'm guessing the 1950–51 construction was deliberate, meaning Financial Year 1950–51 (FY 1950–51 would begin on 1 July 1950) so I'm not really sure which single year it would be best to choose, though admittedly FYs are sometimes abbreviated in Australia to the second of the two years involved, so "1951" might be perfectly valid. Another option is just saying "since the start of the decade" or some such, WDYT?
    • Either of those would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Plumped for the latter, more or less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a series of reforms that took place in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. Being a ridiculously under-researched area of Soviet history, there isn't a massive amount of information out there in the world about this reform, however, what little that has been written is of very high quality, and has all been used to source this article. The article had a pop at FAC over the christmas/new year period, the result being four supports and one oppose, the oppose being about prose concerns. I stuck the article on the no-mans-land that is the copyeditors request page, but decided to have a go at rewriting bits myself when interest at GOCE was shown to be non-existent and I had a couple of days at work with nothing to do but mess around on wikipedia. I'll be the first to admit that I found the failure to be promoted last time a bit demoralising, but my previous experience on wikipedia with other FACs has taught me that resilience always pays off in the end. I would ask that anyone with any concerns that they think might be a quick easy fix consider making the changes which may often be a great deal quicker than writing an essay on my failings as a writer. I look foward to any constructive comments. Cya! Coolug (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that I'm a GA and FL-man, and not a FA-man, I'm not the best of reviewers. Even so, here I go:

• I'm guessing that the Sovnarkhoz reform of 1957 and the monetary reform of 1961 did effect the implementation of this reform in some way or another....
• Shouldn't the Seven-Five Year Plan be mentioned? Considering that the Soviet economy was built on planning, the plan in which the reform was a part of should be mentioned.
• I'm not sure, but should it be mentioned that the 1986 wage reform was very similar to to the 1956 reform?
• The reform caused major disruptions in the machine-tool sector, for instance, the machine-tool sector reported a shortage of 600,000 in 1964 because of the reform. The Brezhnev–Kosygin leadership partially reversed the reform when they came to power. This is not mentioned...
• A new reform came during the 1970s; did it replace this one, or was it only minor?
• While the reform was planned to end in 1962, several features of the reform were delayed to 1964 and 1965; for instance, the reform was not introduced in the service sector before 1964/1965
• The article could do with more pictures of something - maybe pictures of workers? This one maybe?

Probably more to say, but I can't seem to come up with any.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

hello. Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately there isn't a huge amount of sources that specifically mention this wage reform, so to be perfectly honest I'm not massively knowledgable about a lot of the stuff you mention because I haven't read about it in the sources I've used. However, this machine-tool sector problem sounds very interesting, especially if the leadership specifically blamed the reform, could you point me in the direction of a reliable source I could use for this? I can access academic journals via a friend who works at a university. Anything you can suggest that cites this would be great. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, here; Soviet Workers and De-Stalinization: The Consolidation of the Modern System of Soviet Production Relations 1953–1964 (this one contains much information which this article is missing) and The Dilemmas of de-Stalinization: Negotiating Cultural and Social Change in the Khrushchev Era mentions some of this... Do you need more? --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my even later response :) I've got the "Soviet Workers..." book by Filtzer at home so I'll try and add some of this stuff, however, the index is not super comprehensive so it might take me a while to read through and find the things you suggest I add. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've thrown in a mention of the gorbachev thing, however, I really want to include this machine tool shortage thing but can't find the reference to this among the 300 pages of filtzers book, where is this? Have you got a page number? Coolug (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I supported this last time, and I've been through the edits since the previous nomination was archived. These include helpful copyedits from two other editors. The article prose is improved, and I can't see any new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment:

• Shouldn't the headers "Positive results" and "Failures" be consistent? i.e., "Successes" and "Failures", or "Positive results" and "Negative results"? More of a query than a criticism. But "Conclusions" strikes me as somewhat wrongly worded; wouldn't "Legacy" be a better term? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

hello. Thanks for this. I have made successes/failure more consistent. I'd rather keep 'conclusions' however, as the text is more about how the reforms told us something interesting about labour relations in the USSR than any lasting legacy of the reforms. That's not to say I'm against changing it, I just don't think legacy would be any more an accurate title. cya! Coolug (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The opening paragraph remains problematic, as indicated by Tony during the last FAC. I wonder why you have not adopted his suggested rewording, which in my opinion is much more fluent and authoratitive than the present tentative beginning. His suggestion was:-

"During the Khrushchev era, from 1956 through 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to implement wage reforms intended to move industrial workers away from the mindset of overfulfilling quotas, which had characterised the Soviet economy during the Stalinist period."

As Tony suggests, this could be tweaked in a few ways without losing any force. I strongly recommend you make this change. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did do just that during the first FAC. I'm not going to not follow some advice due to some fear of losing face. Here's the page last week [10]. I changed the opening again because short of anyone telling me otherwise I was under the impression the opening was still regarded as falling short (tbh I forgot that the article opened that way because someone else suggested I do it that way).... Anyway, I'll change it back.

Other helpful comments, I shall respond shortly...... Coolug (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just had another look at the first FAC and noted that I actually did make every change he suggested, except for the removing of the word 'incentive' as I felt (and other editors agreed) that it was an entirely appropriate word for an economics article and was also a the word used in the original source. I'm always happy to make a suggested change if it's a constructive one. Coolug (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on (1bcde; 2abc; 3 (limited); 4): I've read it again, and it still meets: Content depth, breadth and correctness; source & cite quality; structure; neutrality & stability; media (appropriateness and captions only) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: not as tasty as your last featured article candidate, but I'll try to read this over and review the prose as best I can. A couple quick comments to start:
• Try to be consistent with comma usage, for example, I see "In 1956..." (no comma) "In May 1955,..." (comma).
• "Academic Donald Filtzer wrote that wider issues in Soviet industry..." What kind of Academic was Dr. Filtzer? An economic, a historian? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for these comments, I have made a few changes. If there's anything I've missed please let me know. Cya! Coolug (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm back again with more:
• Not a big deal, but I'm not sure wage reforms needs to be bold in the lead (WP:BOLDTITLE).
• You start the first two paragraphs with "During...", is there a good way to avoid that?
• In the image caption, I'd suggest "celebrates" rather than "is celebrating".
• In the second caption, I'd suggest "was offered as a role model for workers by Soviet authorities." instead of "was used by Soviet authorities as a role model for other workers."
• "This was usually because, due to supply problems, factories simply did not have the resources to complete production until the end of the month." This reads somewhat awkwardly to me. How about "This was usually due to supply problems that left factories without the resources to complete production until the end of the month."?
• "Alec Nove wrote in 1966... that the lack of transparency surrounding average wages was in fact to prevent Soviet workers..." I'm not sure "in fact" is the best choice there, I'd suggest something like "was intended to prevent Soviet workers..."
• I made a few copyedits, hopefully inoffensive ones. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'd prefer 30em over 20em here, but that is purely a matter of preference.
• "Quotas had been lowered during the Second World War so that new inexperienced workers" Is "new inexperienced" redundant here? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your excellent edits. I have now made changes for everything you suggest. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "First, basic wages were increased. This meant that there would be less pressure to overfulfill quotas, and therefore less pressure to manipulate or distort results." Maybe combine these two sentences?
• Maybe think about combining some of the short paragraphs in the Provisions subsection.
• "The number of different wage rates and wage scales was drastically reduced." Could we remove "different" here without changing the meaning?
• "This allowed managers to better distribute labour and helped to reduce the frequency of bottlenecks occurring in production, as formerly less attractive tasks would now be carried out by workers who had seen their financial incentive to focus on higher paying tasks disappear." Is there a good way to tighten this sentence up a bit?
• "with only 0.5 percent of workers continuing to receive them in 1962", "with piece-rate workers seeing", "with wages across the entire state (not only industrial wages) rising" Is there a good way to avoid the WP:PLUSING in some (or all) of these?
• "The wage reform was linked to a program that reduced the length of the overall working week in the Soviet Union. From 1958 the working week was reduced from 48 hours to 41." Maybe try to combine these two sentences?
• "Whilst the reform did remove some of the peculiarities of the Stalinist era, overall the reforms created more new problems for Soviet workers." See if you can avoid the repetition of "the reform... the reforms" here.
• "A further problem with the centrally directed bonus system was that it would encourage factories to continue producing old, more familiar products where it was therefore easier to overfulfill targets than to start work on new products." This feels a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it up?
• "in the same way that their counterparts in the west could" & "Some academics in the west believed" vs "the culture of consumerism that in the West" & "seen to such an extent in the West in industries" Not sure which version is correct here.
  • Looks like some of my comments may have been taken care of by subsequent copyediting by MathewTownsend. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Made some more copyedits, feel free to revert if you think I put too many commas in. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made changes to everything you suggest. Thanks for your edits, plus thanks for the help Mathew! Coolug (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, fixes look good. I'm taking a second, and hopefully quicker, run through the article. I think the prose is in good shape at this point. Just a preference issue, but I'd suggest condensing the lead to two paragraphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• You have "The subsequent sixth Five-Year Plan for 1956 to 1960" and then "The Sixth Five Year Plan made several key changes" in the next paragraph. I think the first one is right?
• Is there a good article to link to "corrective labour"?
• Feel free to push back against my last round of copyediting if you think I got too ambitious.
• Alright, I've gone over the article about as thoroughly as I can, and I am now more than willing to support its promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all your help with the article and your support. I piped 'corrective labour' to Gulag. But I've realised that the Gulag system was dissolved in 1960, so I've undone the edit. It would be good to have a link there though, I'll have a look around and see what I can find that might be suitable. cya! Coolug (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment:

• This page lacks a discussion, or even a mention, of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism or socialism. These theoretical ideas lay behind much of what the Soviet Union was about, and the fact that they are not even mentioned in this article is a great omission. A section discussing these theoretical currents and their influence on the Soviet wage system should really be included in the background section to ensure proper coverage of this area. I personally believe that this is a major issue, but maybe others would disagree with me.
• Another niggling point that is in the "Conclusions" section the term "West", referring to the western world, is referred to in both capitalised and de-capitalised forms; this should be standardised. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

The use of these theoretical constructs in the article is inappropriate, if only because the scholarly literature avoids these shibboleths. I don't think the first part of this comment is substantially actionable. In particular neither Marxism-Leninism, nor Marxism, nor Socialism actually lay behind PC policy decisions in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was more Marxism in the PCI. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid I tend to I agree with Fidelfoo about the first part, unfortunately the sources I've used are all super scholarly so they don't go into the fact that the Soviet Union was a marxist-leninist state, and in fact I don't think having a centrally dictated wage system is an especially marxist idea anyway.

Fixed the West bit, thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Communism is mentioned at the end of the "successes" section: "He had spoken previously of the reduction of working hours as a basic goal of a communist movement, and had hoped that communism would eventually achieve a working day of 3–4 hours." Not sure how much more you can fit in, but maybe a link in that section? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Common Tern

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is masses of RS stuff on this widespread, well-studied species, so it's been a matter of what to leave out, rather than my usual scratching around for suitable material. Anything missing, I ought to be able to fix (60 pages on Common Tern parasitic worms if necessary!). Thanks to :Casliber, Snowman, Shyamal and Maias for comments and improvements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• General comment: I tend to think that going from B to FA, by-passing the GA stage, leaves a lot of work for the FA reviewers, sometimes leaving the FA reviewers to almost completely re-write the article. In this case, I think that the article has been worked up quite a lot, and I will be interested to watch the progress of this FAC. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My last few bird FAs have all gone straight to FA, and haven't created any obvious heavy commenting. There are other current FACs by experienced editors which have also gone straight in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have found it interesting reading the Common Tern article. I have found a few problems, which have now been fixed, but I have not focused much on MOS. I guess that I found fewer problems than I might have done on an average FAC, so to me this seems to support the nominators option to bypass the GA stage. After a careful copy-editing from new reviewers, I expect that it will get a FA star soon. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• From the table: "The nominate subspecies, there is only limited variation within this form." This is not consistent with the content of the other boxes in this column, which have an actual description of salient features. I think that this entry should also mention the salient features. I think that it should also have an in-line ref, like the content of the other boxes in this column. Adding this will help to make the table a more useful summary that could stand alone separated from the text in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Sea Swallow". Is which parts of the would is this term used? What is the history of this term? If this is an alternative common name (or an informal name), why is it not included in the introduction? Can all the other terns be called "Sea Swallow" as well? Snowman (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, it's used throughout the English-speaking world, but I don't intend to add a massive list of references for every relevant country. The name is historic, old-fashioned, and at best informal — I've never heard the term in RL. Because it's not significant enough to be a proper alternative name, I've debolded. Now This resemblance also leads to the informal name "Sea Swallow",[7] recorded from at least the seventeenth century.[6] As the text states, all the names for Common Tern have been used interchangeably for Arctic, I haven't come across anything suggesting that this name was deliberately used for any other species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Especially in the early part of the breeding season, for no apparent reason, ...": Would it be better to imply that the reason for this phenomenon is unknown, rather than imply that is is for no reason. Presumably, the mass cooperation and the energy expenditure would tend to indicate that there is a reason for this to happen, perhaps flock or colony cohesion or a tactic that enables the flock to know where to find the best fishing areas. Could it be because of the wind or weather? Could it be to avoid predictors or competitors? Snowman (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• changed to no known reason. If the experts don't know why this happens, for me to speculate would be WP:OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is there a lot of literature on this species? Should the article mention how much this species has been studied? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see how this can be done without OR. It's a common species which occurs in most of the world, it would be surprising if it wasn't well studied. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not at all. A reliable source might say; "It has been well studied, because ...", "The migration patterns have been investigated to find out more about bird migration in general", "its parasites have been researched a lot, because ..." Why did you say "masses of RS stuff on this widespread ..." in the nomination? Surely, there must be some explanation of what you describe as 60 pages on parasites. You could have omitted something from the article that is important regarding the vast amount of literature and research on this tern. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, leave this with me for now, I'll come back to it over the weekend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is actionable. None of my sources say why there is a lot of research. As I indicated, it's not studied because it's an ideal subject Drosophila, or has particularly interesting characteristics compared to its similar relatives. If you are an ornithologist in a northern hemisphere university, there will be probably be common terns breeding nearby, without the inconvenience and cost of heading to the Arctic or tropics, but that's unlikely to be the reason you give in your PhD thesis.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely, this is potentially actionable. I presume that you are implying that the reason for the mass of literature is rather mysterious. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• The origins of the genus name is briefly mentioned in the text. The genus authority is Carl Linnaeus (a man from Sweden) and I presume he Latinised a word that became Sterna. What word was Latinised? Would Linnaeus have been aware of an old English poem or Old Englsih? The article could be read to mean that the Old English word "stearn" was changed to the Genus name, but I am not entirely sure if this was the word Linnaeus used or if he used a Swedish word or a Latin word. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Linnaeus wrote in Latin, and he lists three earlier sources that used Sterna, so I imagine that it was already established by then. I'm not an expert on etymology, but it does seem likely that the word was latinised from the Old English or a closely related Gemanic word. The Seafarer was presumably itself derived from an older Germanic oral tradition Jimfbleak - talk to me?

I do not know much about Latin and I have not been able to find out if there is a Latin word for tern; however, it seems that "sterna" is Italian for tern (see Wiktionary) and very similar words were used by the Frisians and in Old English for a tern, according to the OED. The OED actually says that Linnaeus adopted this word for his name of the genus. I have tried to do clarify and tidy up this part of the article, and please make more amendments, if needed. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this for now since all the links in the ref went to the Wikipedia article, which is not RS. I don't have the OED, so I couldn't fix it. Can you do so? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. I probably did not test the links in the ref, which was "OED". OED. Oxford University Press. December 2011. http://www.oed.com. . Snowman (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just noticed that clicking on the arrow does open the OED website. It is probably best to use the template format instead; "sterna". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 3rd ed. 2001.. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have put back the text using the OED template ref. Do you think that this is suitable? Anyone, with a council library card in the UK can log on to the OED using the card number as the password. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I've tagged to indicate that a subscription is required. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Chicks do not drink before fledging, reabsorbing water and excreting a strong salt solution instead." This sounds interesting, but it is seems rather vague to me. I would be interested to learn a little more about fluid and electrolyte balance in tern chicks. Reabsorbing water from where, kidneys, special salt glands, or somewhere else? Snowman (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• added all I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "..., reabsorbing water and salt from the cloaca, and excreting a strong salt solution from a nasal gland." The salt glands in the nose is interesting. As the cloaca is a hole, I can not understand how a hole can reabsorb water. From what I know about human anatomy, cells with the capability of reabsorbing water will be lining the gut and in the kidneys. Excuse me, I can be a stickler about anatomy. Presumably, the droppings that pass through the cloaca are fairly dry. It would be logical to mention the role of nasal salt glands in the adults too, if they have them. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I had doubts about the cloaca myself, now removed. It's clear that the salt is extracted by the nasal glands, that's now referenced, and extended to adults. I can't find a mechanism for the water, so I assume it's what you would expect — absorbed from food by the digestive system, cleaned up by kidneys, salt dumped by nsasal glands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• That looks fine to me, but if someone subsequently thinks that "reabsorbing water" is jargon, then it may be simpler to say something to the effect that the "chicks droppings are rather dry preserving body water". Snowman (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The chicks fledge in 22–28 days." This sounds incredibly young to me for a chick to reach a weight of about 110 to 140 gm and gain all its feathers in this time and leave the nest. I would be grateful if this is double checked. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Four different sources all give figures in this range. Remember that these are precocial species, so already more developed than hole nesters when hatched, and they are fed on what amounts to solid protein. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would never have guessed that they grow up so fast. Parrots have only just started to get some of their big feathers at that age. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• For obvious reasons, most species that breed on open beaches tend not to fledge as early as possible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• It seems logical that chick's that grow up faster will have better survival rates. I guess that dryish droppings would also produce a minimum of mess or smell at the site of the nest for predictors to pick up on. Do chick's produce faecal sacs? Do the adults take droppings away to protect the nest site? Is there anything about the adults keeping a nest site tidy and secure from predators? Snowman (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a bit about excretion, no point in faecal sacs since young are mobile, and tern colonies are highly visible so it's basically just a matter of not fouling the nest itself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have looked at the incubation time in two seabird books now; one says "about four weeks" and the other says "28 days or so". These two book are saying something slightly different to 22–28 days. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Those are within the range, I've added a bit to say that 25-26 days is usual. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• To me, that seems to make it much better. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Territory. Please clarify that terns are territorial before making nests, and all the time while the eggs are incubated and while the chicks are growing up. The section seems to concentrate on prior to egg laying. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I thought it was obvious that the nest would continue to be defended once it had eggs and chicks, can't really see how it could be otherwise, but made explicit now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... and long bulgy legs"; I have looked at the pictures and I see no reason for calling the legs bulgy. In flight the legs seems to be neatly retracted to me. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Eek! it's nonsense. I copied this from a previous tern FA since the family stuff is common to both, must have read it dozens of times in two facs, still didn't notice. Changed to relatively weak in both articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I expect that the legs are strong enough, so I have changed it to "slender" legs. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I used WikiBlame to find the edit which wrote in bulgy legs. It looks like it was added by a vandal to me on the Greater Crested Tern article. See this edit at the start of a sequence of vandalism done on 19 November 2008, the day the Greater Crested Tern was shown on the main page. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... it is therefore classed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List."; even if it had a large range and a large population, it could be classed as vulnerable, if numbers were declining rapidly. The "therefore" here is therefore wrong. A and B might be true, but here B may not always be true when A is true. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... millinery trade caused large decreases in Common Tern populations ..."; I have got a little book on seabirds and it says that in the 1800s these birds were also killed for sport and food. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Several sources say that the main reason for the massive decline was the trade in feathers and skins. Everything was shot and hunted before legal protection, and I've mentioned that hunting continues in some areas. I haven't seen anything to suggest that hunting was a major cause of the near extinction. Terns have coexisted with man forever, and their typically remote nest sites probably meant that they suffered less than more accessible and more edible species (fish-eating birds tend to be something of an acquired taste!). If you think it should go in anyway, can you give me the ref please? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is in The Guinness Book of Sea and Shore Birds. 1982. page 132, ISBN 0851123074, but I would be reluctant to mention sport and human food, if it is not in up-to-date books as well. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have written in that the millinery trade was the main cause. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omission: Not much about the feet in the article - are the feet webbed or not? Snowman (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's so obvious that seabirds have webbed feet that it took me a while to find an RS source, added to start of Taxonomy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Although, they do not swim much (according the the article), I wonder how useful webbed feet are to get around underwater, perhaps to get to the surface again, when they dive underwater to catch fish. Is the article implying that they do not swim on the surface much, swim underwater much, or neither. If use of webbed feet is to be included, I suspect that more details are needed of what they use their webbed feet for, or perhaps the bit about not swimming much could be left out. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the swimming comment. They don't use their feet for anything related to them being webbed, it's just an evolutionary feature common to most seabirds, even those that don't swim. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am aware that the appendix is considered to be evolutionary remnant in humans, but I am sceptical that an external feature like webbed feet would be an evolutionary remnant in seabirds. I think that a bird that spends a lot of time in the air would soon loose webbed feet shedding weight, if they were not useful for something. Surely, web feet would be useful for launching from the sea surface to gain as much upward thrust as possible, in a similar way that a parrot jumps when launching from a solid surface. I also would guess that it would be handy for a seabird that feeds on fish to be able to use webbed feet to swim (under water or on water). I guess that it is probably wise to remove hints of use of webbed from the article and I suspect there there has not been much research on the use of webbed feet by Common Terns. Nevertheless, it might make an interesting topic on the genus or family page. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omission: How long do adults feed fledged chicks? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good point, added to para 3 of Breeding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omission: About their sleep: Where do they sleep? Do they have preferred night time roosts? Do they ever sleep in flight? Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• last sentence of habitat tweaked to clarify In addition to natural beaches and rocks, boats, buoys and piers are often used both as perches and night-time roosts. AFAIK, Common Swift is the only species that sleeps in flight. That's so unusual that I think it's redundant to say that a bird doesn't do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• "On hot days the incubating parent may fly to water to wet its belly feathers before returning to the eggs, thus affording the eggs some cooling.[4]"; there is nothing about this in reference 4, at least on the webpage that the link in the reference opens. However, this looks like the correct source, which I found after being puzzled and doing some searching for it. After a quick check, I think that most of the 13 in-line references to reference 4 have no information about the respective content in the article on that particular webpage. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've linked to the introduction page and specifically said that a subscription is needed for full access. As it happens, for reasons that are not entirely clear, all the content for this species is currently available, but I don't know how long that will be for so I don't want to create lots of links to subpages that might become inaccessible. If it is available, the full content can be reached from the introduction page. Arctic Tern illustrates the problem. AFAIK, this is the normal way of dealing with subscription sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can see your point of view. I welcome other readers views. Have other readers been puzzled when they attempt to verify something in reference 4? Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jim, I have the printed version of this. Let me know if you want to use a page number instead. MeegsC | Talk 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think the present arrangement at least gives a gateway to content which can be used while access persists. If it becomes an issue, I'll take up your kind offer, but obviously there won't be any url at all then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• To me it seems sensible to leave the in-line references to reference 4 as they are, in view of possible temporary access to many webpages about the Common Tern. I do not know the guidelines about what url to use, but I think this issue need not be a problem for FA, unless other readers find verification a puzzle. An explanatory note in the main ref=name tag might be helpful, but unconventional. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the Template:Cite book does allow for a url, so I think that page numbers and a url could go in the book cite. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The point of changing to a book cite is that there is no requirement to give a url, so the problem of subpage accessibility goes away. I'd rather not go down that route unless it becomes an issue, since the current referencing, although not ideal, gives more transparency while free access lasts. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Impression. I edit bird articles and I have edited this article, so I may have a conflict of interest in commenting on this article; however, I have tried to be as objective as I can. At this juncture, I am not aware of any major problems in this article. I think that this article has essentially reached FA status; however, prior to the FA star being awarded, I think the article needs new reviewers or new copy-editors to focus on the text and MOS, partly because this article has had few reviewers having bypassed the GA stage. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise as a member of wikiproject birds) on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I've read this a few times and it's come together very well. I can't see any clangers but fresher eyes than mine are always good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for support and tweak Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments from Lemurbaby (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can you explain or link to something to explain what a "failed breeder" is, for laymen readers?
• "often replacing at least some two, occasionally three times in a year" - doesn't quite flow and could benefit from rewording.
• "The visible difference in feather age is accentuated in the ultraviolet reflectance" - do newer or older feathers reflect more?
• I was distracted by the switching back and forth between using "the" before a tern species or not using it. What is the system you're using? Consistency will be key with this.
• "These adaptations are understandable for a bird living in an unstable, wind-blown and tidal environment" - Can you reword this to exclude "understandable" so it doesn't come across as a value judgment?
• Varela ref not in template.
• "American mink is a serious predator" - is there a better word than "serious"?
• "Tapeworms of the family Cyclophyllidea are also a possibility." - reword
• I'm seeing some refs provide first name middle initial, and others first and middle initial. Can you pick one and use it consistently?
• Did a copy edit - take a look to make sure I didn't alter or remove meaning

Poppy Meadow

Nominator(s): MayhemMario 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after the first nomination brought up many points, which ultimately lead to a fail, and a polietly comment for me to nominate this article to WP:PR, to see what it brought up, then renominate it. The PR, brought up nil pou. Literally, see it for yourself. I have to admit, it may have brought up many points if User:Malleus Fatuorum hadnt done a huge cleanup of the article, but I think now it is at te best oppurtunity it could/can be. User:Frickative got the article to GA status aswell; so although Frickative may have not nominated this article for FA, I would like Frickative to get credit if this article does succeed, along with User:Malleus Fatuorum. MayhemMario 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Not sure your confidence in the overall perfection and lack of anything to be changed is correct:

• "[...] is a brunette beautician who wears false nails." Of what relevance / significance are false nails to her overall characterisation? This section is weighted significantly to media opinion's about her character - is there no way that storylines involving her could be given as evidence of her other personality traits (e.g. her infatuation with Anthony)?

Hi sadly, the epsiodes now are unavalibale to watch. We dont nromally include quotes from the actual episodes, unless a point is made about it in the media. I have removed the 'false nail' quote. MayhemMario 18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• In Reception: I would recommend that Katy Moon's discussion of Poppy be shortened - it dominates the entire section at the moment, seemingly becoming more Moon's than Wikipedia's.
• Development > Introduction: "Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Bright would be reprising her role as Poppy, and would have comical scenes." This refers to the reprisal of her role rather than her introduction, right? It should be split off from the beginning of the section, which is her general introduction into the show and introduced in its own right. Make explicit mention to the fact she departs and then returns, and: Why did she leave?

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done the latter point. Poppy left due to her only being a guest character, then returning as a recurring.MayhemMario 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, im not that confident about it! MayhemMario 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done all points, par 1 part of the 3rd point as I do not understand it. MayhemMario 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean the "Introduction" is a single block, even though it details two disparate issues: firstly, her introduction into the show as a guest character; secondly, her return after a departure of several months as a recurring character. At the moment the two issues run into each other without clear distinction (in fact, the lede is far more clear than the text itself). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AH, thank you. I'm thinking of splitting it into two sections, Introduction, then Return. MayhemMario 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I took the liberty of just adding a space between the paragraphs to see how that worked and I hope you agree it makes everything much clearer. Obviously, feel free to revert or do whatever if you disagree / do what you feel is best. But you've improved the section anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Verbatim quotation: You have reduced the Kathy Moon quote from 365 words to 329, but this is still way, way too long and disproportionate. What is it about Moon's opinions that can only be expressed in a lengthy verbatim quotation, rather than in a much shorter paraphrase using perhaps a few key phrases as quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have further cut down the quote as far as possible. MayhemMario 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Moon's prose and the ideas expressed therein do not justify a quoatation of any length; the answer is not to keep pruning bits off it, but to do what I suggested earlier and use paraphrase. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So the length isnt to your requirement? If that is the case, I will try, if I can, to merge it in. MayhemMario 12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Brian is absolutely right, so I've taken the liberty of hacking away ruthlessly at that overpowering blockquote. See what you think.[11] Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that, it looks much better. :) MayhemMario 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

• The final paragraph of the lead doesn't quite work for me; the final sentence begins "Her return was viewed more favourably by the tabloid press", but that follows what appears to be a favourable review in The Guardian, definitely not part of the tabloid press. Furthermore, the paragraph begins with very clearly unfavourable reviews from the Daily Mail and the Metro which are tabloids. That just doesn't compute. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Storylines

• "... Poppy advises Jodie to ignore Darren in order to manipulate him". Where in the citation given is that statement supported? So far as I can tell it doesn't mention Poppy at all. I thought the general rule with works of fiction was that the book/story/episode was the source for itself anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! The first point is what you brought up at my talk page! I'll get on to that now, as with the second. The reference supports the whole episode, so it may not have it in wrting, but it was in the epsiode on TV. MayhemMario 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the tabloid part, so theres no confusion. As with the second point, the "Poppy advises Jodie to ignore Darren in order to manipulate him" is supported by the reference, is it not? The ref supports the whole episode and what goes on in it, so... yeah? MayhemMario 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But the episode summary linked to doesn't mention that, so what's the point of the citation? It's not the summary that's the source, it's the episode itself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's the epsidoe itself, but eben though it may not be mentioned in the episodes summary, we still link it to that, as thats the nearest source to the epsiode itself. MayhemMario 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the tabloid part: "Her return was viewed more favourably; several Daily Mirror writers gave Poppy positive reviews, and The Sun's Colin Robertson criticised the termination of Bright's contract" still doesn't work, as it directly follows the obviously favourable Guardian review, and isn't more obviously favourable than that. Would you like me to have a go at it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind? Are you allowed to do that? I would be extremely grateful if you would. MayhemMario 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn- I'm glad to see this back here. I can't say I have any interest in EastEnders, but having a decent pop-culture fictional character article to point to would be a great thing.

• "the Queen Victoria pub" I don't think we need a link here- my reaction was that it was a link to an article on the pub

Somehow, during the process it must have got unlinked, beacuse it was linked to this, so I have relinked it.

• "Hawkins assessed the situation Poppy was in; as [Poppy] was loyal to Jodie, she felt she would effectively be lying to her if Darren did not confess." Is this meant to be a direct quote? What's going on here?

Changed Quote.

• In the storyline development section, you refer to "Darren (Hawkins)" but "Anthony Moon (Matt Lapinskas)". Both have already been introduced in the storyline section.

Done

• "Lapinskas deemed his character is "pleased that somebody likes him", and said that while he was also interested in Jodie, he was put "on the spot" by Poppy and so did what he thought was expected of him in asking her out." Tense switch.

Im confused, where is the tense switch?

I've changed it myself. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• "on Tommy Moon dying of a cot death." Tommy Moon is linked above- also, you don't "die of a cot death" any more than you "die of A suicide".

User:Malleus Fatuorum did this point.

• "excellently written – very The Only Way is Essex – and made me" Already linked further up. Also, that Moon quote feels very long. Perhaps trim or split it? If that's absolutely not possible, a blockquote?

Unlinked and Put into Quote.

• "commented on Poppy's return that" Clumsy phrase

Done.

• I'm not too keen on providing the publishers for all these newspapers and magazines- I'd normally just provide the name of the publication. That's your choice, though: As long as it's consistent.

I think it is conisistent, and it is used in all EE articles, so I would rather it was kept.

If you're happy with it, then that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd also recommend trimming excessive capitals from article titles. This Is Not Easy To Read Even If The Other Website Likes It Like This. (Don't do that with book/magazine titles or anything, though. Just article titles.) I did one that was really rather unpleasant looking, but there are others.

Done.

This really is a decent article. I do feel that it is close to FA quality. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Image check: The single non-free image is appropriate and has a detailed rationale. It clearly meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. I really don't think much more could be done on a minor soap character. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Well written and surprisingly well referenced, with an excellent balance of in-universe and real-world information. A great example of what an article of this sort should look like. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Just a slight niggle, Ref 5 was published on guardian.co.uk as it was a blog, not 'The Guardian' newspaper. – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. MayhemMario 16:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I don't see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing; can the nominator point to a recent one at FAC, either for this or an earlier nom? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? But what does that mean? :) MayhemMario 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just what it says -- but if you don't know I guess you've never had one and need to be initiated... ;-) FYI, this is an example -- it has to be performed by an independent reviewer, so we'll add it to the list of image/spotcheck requests at WT:FAC accordingly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose after source spot-check. I opposed the last nomination here not even two months ago based predominantly on sourcing and attribution issues and recommended a complete audit by an independent editor. This doesn't appear to have been done before renomination. I found issues with 4 of 6 refs that I randomly checked. I do not believe this should become a featured article until an editor with a solid understanding of summary, paraphrase, and quotation audits each ref used in this article. Spot-checks:

Ref 1, seems hinky to me and violates infobox guidelines.

• Article text: Our infobox lists Poppy's birthday as "21 October 1990".
• Source text: Doesn't mention this date. We seems to be calculating Poppy's age based on her 21st birthday party being held in a certain episode. The problem is, the source doesn't mention the air date of the episode, and even it it was, this is WP:OR in my opinion. Also, this information is not written anywhere in the prose—there is not supposed to be anything represented in the infobox that's not also in the prose.

I've added it to the storyline section so it is not just in the prose. In EE articles we normally keep references in the infobox. Surrounding your question about the source, because obviously we cannot list the exact time and place in which the date was mentioned, we use a source we covers the whole episode as one, therefore referecing everything in the episode. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref 2(a), incorrect quotation formatting and violation of minimal change guideline.

• Article text: "Both characters left the series on 14 November 2011, but with the 'potential for Poppy to appear again in the future'."
• Source text: "'Like Norman, Poppy had always been a supporting character, not a regular, however we may well see her return again in the future.'" Two problems here. First, the source is quoted someone else, and this is not reflected in our text. Second, we've altered the quotation without using proper formatting. Please review WP:MOSQUOTE.

Done. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref 3(a), OK.

• Article text: "Poppy's introduction was deemed 'bizarre and utterly irrelevant' by Jody Thompson of the Daily Mail"
• Source text: "Instead, a bizarre and utterly irrelevant chat between Jodie Gold and brand new character Poppy Meadow in the Queen Vic was put into the show instead."

Ref 4(a), Violation of minimal change guideline.

• Article text: "... and 'pointless' and 'unnecessary' by the Metro's Daniella Grama"
• Source text: "As Jody and Poppy moved on to chat about peanuts, viewers were left questioning why on earth anyone thought this pointless sub-plot was necessary."

Done. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref 24, OK.

• Article text: "A spokeswoman for EastEnders confirmed that the scenes had been edited following viewers' strong response to the story, but said that no complete scenes were removed: 'Given the audience response to this storyline, we felt on this occasion that it was appropriate to respond and make some changes. The vast majority of material remains intact and we don't believe that those trims we have made will weaken or detract from the overall storyline for viewers.'
• Source text: "The spokeswoman told the Daily Star Sunday: 'We can assure you that no complete scenes were cut from this episode. Given the audience response to this storyline, we felt on this occasion that it was appropriate to respond and make some changes. The vast majority of material remains intact and we don't believe that those trims we have made will weaken or detract from the overall storyline for viewers.'"

Ref 27, incorrect formatting of quotation-within-quotation (frankly, I'm not sure how much value there is in quoted a single, unremarkable word; just paraphrase):

• Article text: "Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Bright would be reprising her role as Poppy, with 'comical' scenes."
• Source text: "'She's just come back and I've been filming some stuff with her, which is lovely - some quite comical stuff,' Babbington said." --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unquotted the word 'comical' to avoid "quotation-within-quotation". MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done all your points Laser brain. MayhemMario 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your speed and enthusiasm, MayhemMario, but I don't think I'll be able to withdraw my opposition until I see evidence that an independent editor who is knowledgeable about properly citing, attributing, and quoting sources has checked through the whole article. These are just samples, not a comprehensive list of problems. I found issues in the last nomination which you fixed, and I see that you claim in the peer review that you "did some edits, checked the sources, etc." That I found more issues this time (and at quite a high rate—4 issues out of 6 refs checked) indicates that you are not seeing the problems. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support with comments There maybe an WP:OVERLINK problem in the referencing section. I believe you are supposed to only link terms on its first occurrence and not overdo it. Other than that the article, I believe, is FA ready. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. MayhemMario 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Werner Hartenstein

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Triggered by the BBC mini series "The Sinking of the Laconia" I started investigating the life of Werner Hartenstein. I believe to have come very close to making this article featured. Please help me improve the article further. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistency review of sources

• Be consistent in how you notate foreign-language sources—esp. where you place the "(in German)" notice; before or after pub. & loc. details
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you notate multiple editors: with an ampersand, a semicolon or an "and"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you notate pub years: with brackets between the title and the author or with a comma after the publisher
  • done except for the last one. I can't get {{Cite book}} to render the year in the right place. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

--Eisfbnore ^talk 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you'll find the problem with the "cite book" is that no author fields have been filled in. If you put in the first/last fields that you have used in the others, or even "|author=Anon." then the year will go to the right place. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• File:Werner_Hartenstein_with_KC.jpg: "unique historic image" template doesn't seem to work here
  • Converted to {{Non-free fair use in}}. Is this appropriate? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• File:Pedernales_sinking.jpg needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I update the replaceability tag MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "was involved in the Laconia incident" is too vague. I would prefer the sentence to explain what he did in the Laconia incident. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am once again nominating this for featured article. Since the last FAC nom it has undergone more improvements, another peer review, and another copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I believe the source and image review from the last attempt still applies as these were not changed. Thanks for your input in advance. DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments: It should be understood that the recent peer review only dealt with the lead and plot sections. After an intial readthrough of the article I have several issues :-

• The plot section contains a hidden note pointing out that the plot summary at present considerably exceeds the 400 to 700 wordlength guideline of WP:FILM.
  • I added that note myself to deter IP's from constantly adding to it after every trim I make. As you can see, they seem to ignore it. The word guideline is a case by case basis for films, but I will try to trim it down further. It seems that every time I do, either an IP will add to it, or a reviewer will say it isn't thorough enough. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I made some trims to the Plot. DrNegative (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know when Jules Verne's book was first published under the translated title A Journey to the Center of the Earth, with the AmEng spelling. Unless it was indeed in 1864, it would be more accurate to replace the year in the text with a note: "first published in 1864 as Voyage au centre de la Terre".
  • Added note clarifying. DrNegative (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I understand that the article has been copyedited, but there are some odd sentences. For example:-
  • "The character of Molière was originally intended to be professorial, but..." Professional in what sense?
    • I put professorial in quotation marks as it was quoted from the director from source #43, dictionary meaning: relating to, or characteristic of a professor. I am unsure what you are implying here. Do you feel I should paraphrase or did you misunderstand it? DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks like my misreading of "professorial"; sorry, please ignore this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Later: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial for the nostalgia evoked by the film's action-adventure setting." Can you explain what this means?
    • They were implying the film as a throwback to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and others of that genre which used CinemaScope. Do you fell that I should make it more clear and mention these examples? DrNegative (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe something like: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the Cinemascope format" – and give an example if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, fixed. DrNegative (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Later still, "Like Howard, Rydstrom employed different sounds for the two cultures." What "two cultures"? The term has not previously been used. (These three are examples only)
    • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is a tendency to overdetailing, particularly evident at the beginning of the "Writing" section. Why is it relevant to know that Whedon worked on Toy Story? Why is the very vague wording "about three to four months, plus or minus a few weeks" useful information? Towards the end of the same section we are even informed that Trousdale used spiral-bound notebooks – why is that significant?
  • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have not carried out a sources review, but three quick points:
  • I wonder if the star displays are necessary; is this some convention in film articles?
    • Film articles have used, and at times still use the star ratings when citing a film critic who uses them. It gives a scope of the critic's actual grade regardless of the prose covering him/her within the article. If it is a problem I can remove them though. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, what makes ReelViews.net a reliable source?
    • I would like to quote myself from the previous FAC in regards to your comment: "This is a site owned and maintained by notable web-critic James Berardinelli. Along with his site, he has also had books published which featured his site reviews. Notable film critic Roger Ebert has wrote his book forwards and considers him "the best of the Web-based critics." Rotten Tomatoes also considers him a "Top Critic", a title which they reserve for only the most notable film critics around the world." DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The link in ref 80 returns "page not found"
    • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Images: There are three non-free images. I don't honestly think that the sketch of Milo and Kida can really be said to vital to readers' understanding. I would accept the other two.
  • I strongly disagree with you here. I have stated within the 'purpose of use' of the image description as to why I have included it within the article. That being so the reader can identify the unique character design employed within the film, which was heavily influenced by Mignola'a personal style. It displays the hands and faces where Mignola's influences are most prominent. It also gives context to the tidbit from Milo's lead animator and his inspirations for Milo's final design. Finally, instead of including a film-still, I chose production artwork, which qualifies as fair-use more so than a film-still, as it would not in any way, or in a much lesser way, tarnish the original commercial purpose of the film. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, be ready to defend your decision if others raise the point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert as far as film articles go, but in terms of its general structure and approach this looks reasonably promising. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments were handled in the PR; good luck! ResMar 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on prose (from Steve ^T • C): I see this article has had numerous copyedits, including one from the GOCE; I don't know if it's a by-product of having too many editors' playing with the text, but a review of the lead section alone reveals some issues; I haven't gone beyond this section, but if representative of the rest of the text, it would indicate that the article needs more work before gaining the star:

• Overlinking: common English words and phrases should not be linked; the sea of blue is often unavoidable in the lead, but linking terms such as ensemble cast, musical film, adventure film, linguist, film score, target audience, direct-to-video and cult film will only reduce the impact of the higher-value links around them. Also, and I may be wrong on this point, but I don't believe it's usual to put anchor links in the lead to sections of the same article, such as Atlantis: The Lost Empire#Related works; the table of contents is situated right below, and the lead is meant as a summary of the entire article in any case, so the question arises as to why you're linking one and not the others.
  • I cut down a lot of links and removed the anchor. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Do you really need to name so many castmembers? The long list renders the sentence snakelike and exhausting. Do you think it would be a good idea to keep it just to the leads, or at least trim those with very minor roles?
  • Trimmed the cast list to the main characters and most notable stars. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Atlantis was noted for adopting the distinctive visual style of comic book creator Mike Mignola."—I'm not sure "noted" works, or even conveys your intended meaning; "notable" might be better, given that Mignola worked on the film, though its use can be lazy. What exactly are you trying to say?
  • Changed it to "notable". DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• The use of the word "produced" in the first and second sentences is jarring—not because of the repetition, but because of the (near) homonymy: while strongly related, they are slightly different concepts (the job of a film producer and the more straightforward "made by").
  • I rewrote those sentences a tad taking your suggestions into account. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "... while James Newton Howard (composer for Disney's 2000 animated feature Dinosaur) ..."—does the parenthetical have any relevance? It's quite odd.
  • Point taken, removed the parenthetical. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, the film performed modestly at the box office and received mixed reviews from critics. With a budget of $100 million, Atlantis earned $186 million in worldwide box-office revenue, $84 million of which was earned in the United States and Canada. Some critics praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—this part begins with a statement summarising the box office performance, then the critical reaction, before returning to discuss the box office in more detail and finally doing the same with the reviews. This approach hurts the flow of the piece, and feels conspicuously structured; do you think it would be better to rephrase to present a more linear telling (and remove some redundancies from the prose to boot)? The following is just a suggestion; it isn't the best writing in the world, but you get the idea:

  "Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, Atlantis performed modestly at the box office. Budgeted at $100 million, the film grossed $186 million worldwide, $84 million of which was earned in North America. The film received mixed reviews from critics; some praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others ..."

  • I moved the sentence to follow the box office statement as suggested and rewrote it a tad. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• While we're at it: "... felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—I can't parse this. How can these things hurt the premise?
  • Tweaked sentence, more to the point now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, these issues are just what I picked up from a quick scan of the lead, which at this stage should be the most finely-honed of any section in the article. It's the first that your readers will see, and if it's clunky or difficult to read, it may discourage them from continuing. When you've fixed these, I strongly advise going through the rest of the article to look for similar. From what I can tell, it's a well-researched and comprehensive piece; it'd be a shame if the lack of polish on the prose were to let that promise down. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments and your valuable input Steve. I'll continue scanning it over for any tweaks. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Guatemala

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedro de Alvarado crossed into what is now Guatemala in early 1524, three years after Hernán Cortés defeated the Aztecs, and found a region containing a complex mix of competing Mesoamerican kingdoms already ravaged by diseases accidentally introduced by the conquistadors. Thus began a series of conflicts that lasted around two hundred years as each of these kingdoms was conquered or evangelised. I rescued this page from a redirect in August 2011 and it passed GA in December. I am now satisfied that it covers all the major incidents of the conquest of Guatemala and have done what I can to iron out any problems before bringing it here. The article is comprehensive and stable; I hope that FA review will further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on References section
I know that the main requirement with referencing is for consistency but I would...

• Remove all the explicit pp. from the references. The template will insert them for edited books. A number of references currently have "pp. pp."

I've done this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Use the jstor= parameter for the journal articles available from jstor – instead of linking the title. It is then clear that a subscription is required.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omit the oclc number where an isbn is available

On Worldcat, an ISBN can point to multiple entries while an oclc points to a specific entry so I prefer to keep both. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Simplify the "6th edition, fully revised and expanded ed" to "6th ed.", the "5th, revised and enlarged ed" to "5th ed.", etc

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Give only the first publication place where several are listed by the publisher.

I prefer to give the complete information. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the "Citations" section, insert a space between the pp. and the page number.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• (and I don’t like the use of small caps – I find them more difficult to read)

The use of small caps is fairly standard at WikiProjects Mesoamerica and Central America. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this - it's a bit tidier now. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to cite books by Robert M. Carmack written in Spanish? Has he published similar material in English? His English publications have similar titles. Aa77zz (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of his works may also have been published in English (but not Historia Social de los K'iche's as far as I know). However, I bought my copies in Guatemala and don't have access to English language versions; page numbers would not be the same in any case. Carmack's books are solid referencing for the K'iche' and the fact that they are in Spanish shouldn't make a difference. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where possible you should use English sources – see WP:NOENG – "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The titles obviously aren't identical but is Carmack, Robert M. (2001b): "Kik'ulmatajem le K'iche'aab': Evolución del Reino K'iche'" the same as "The Quiché Mayas of Utatlán: the evolution of a highland Guatemala" First published in 1981, reprinted in 2012? If it is then you should use the (original?) English edition. Aa77zz (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And I would use the English version if I had it but I don't. Where English texts are available, I've used them. In an article upon the history of Guatemala, Spanish texts should not be unexpected, and I've had no problems with using Spanish texts in previous FAs. WP:NOENG points out that an English text is preferred (not demanded) if I have one available, that is not the case. Carmack is a reliable source, and I only have the text in Spanish. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Polo Sifontes, Francis (unknown). Zaculeu: Ciudadela Prehispánica Fortificada. Guatemala" This seems not to be generally available – I cannot find it listed in the Library of Congress catalog or by using google. Is it published? I expect to be able to verify the information without visiting the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala. Aa77zz (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is published; I can't seem to find it under my book mountain at the moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in it that isn't supported in the other sources, so I've removed it as redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on prose

• There are a few 'due to's in the article which need to be replaced by 'owing to' or 'because of'. 'Due to' is adjectival and should hence only be directly attached to a conjugated form of 'to be' (like 'the cancellation of the concert was due to the rain), whilst 'owing to' is adverbial and can therefore be attached to all other verbs (like 'the concert was cancelled owing to the rain'). 'Because of' ought to be used when its sentence can answer a 'Why?' question w/o a full sentence. Another good rule of thumb is that 'due to' can only be used when 'attributable to', 'caused by' or 'resulting from' also would work. And never start a sentence w/ it.

• I've replaced all instances with alternate phrasing. You might want to cast your eye over it to check the changes are all OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good. There were a couple of places where I would have used 'because of' instead, but I'm not a native speaker of English, so I cannot be sure. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "New crops were also introduced but sugarcane and coffee led to the plantations that came to economically exploit native labour." → "New crops were also introduced; however, sugarcane and coffee led to plantations that economically exploited native labour."

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Guatemalan society is divided into a class system largely based on race, with Maya peasants and artisans at the bottom, with the mixed-race Ladino salaried workers and bureaucrats forming the middle and lower class and above them the creole elite of pure European ancestry."—bin the second 'with'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Make sure that all year ranges are separated with dashes and not hyphens.

• I think I've changed them all. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pedro de Alvarado's brother Jorge wrote another account to the king of Spain explaining that it was his own campaign of 1527-1529 that established the Spanish colony."—swap 'explaining' for 'that explained' to remove noun+present participle construction.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is the article written in Brit. or Am. Eng.? I find both 'neighbouring' and 'percent'.

• Whoops - that's British English; I've fixed that "percent". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Although it was well-planned the rebellion was quickly crushed and its leaders were executed; most of the mission towns were abandoned as a result."—my eyes would prefer a comma after 'well-planned'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Tlaxcalan allies of the Spanish who accompanied them in their invasion of Guatemala wrote their own accounts of the conquest, these included a letter to the Spanish king protesting at the poor treatment of these allies once the campaign was over."—comma splice

• I've swapped it for a semi-colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Caption: "Relief map of Guatemala showing the three broad geographical areas; the southern Pacific lowlands, the highlands and the northern Petén lowlands"—replace the semicolon w/ a colon or an em-dash.

• I've swapped it for a colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "At the same time as the Spanish were occupied with the overthrow of the Aztec empire a terrible plague struck the Kaqchikel capital of Iximche"—comma after 'empire'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal, instead harassing the allies of Spain in the region" → "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal; instead they reputedly harassed the allies of Spain in the region."

• I'm not clear why this needs "reputedly". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevermind the 'reputedly'; I just want to get rid of the gerund construction. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the gerund can easily be changed without changing the meaning of the sentence in some way - and in this case the gerund is preferable since the harassment was an ongoing process at the time when Cortés was informed. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More to come. Eisfbnore ^talk 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking this over, I've been staring at it for so long sometimes I just don't see the mistakes! Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure; I will continue the review as soon as I am able. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Spanish viewed the taking of prisoners as a hindrance to outright victory while the Maya priority was the capture of live prisoners and of booty."—this sentence would take better use of its grammatical parallelisms if it read thus: "The Spanish viewed the taking of prisoners as a hindrance to outright victory while the Maya prioritised the capture of live prisoners and of booty." In that way you'll have a more logic and parallel structure with 'subject - predicate - object ; subject - predicate object'

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Bernal Díaz del Castillo wrote a lengthy account of the conquest of Mexico and neighbouring regions, the Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España ("True History of the Conquest of New Spain"), his account of the conquest of Guatemala generally agrees with that of the Alvarados."—swap the second comma for a semicolon to elude the comma splice

• Done.

• "Two pictorial accounts painted in the stylised indigenous pictographic tradition have survived, these are the Lienzo de Quauhquechollan, which was probably painted in Ciudad Vieja in the 1530s, and the Lienzo de Tlaxcala, painted in Tlaxcala."—another comma splice (the first comma); could have fixed it myself though ;P

• Done.

• "In response to the use of cavalry, the highland Maya took to digging pits on the roads, lining them with fire-hardened stakes and camouflaging them with grass and weeds, a tactic that the Kaqchikel claimed killed many horses."—perhaps I am being unkind, but I do maintain that the the 'claimed killed' produces a garden path effect. I would try something down the line of "a tactic that according to the Kaqchikel killed many horses."

• Done.

• "In March 1524, Pedro de Alvarado entered Q'umarkaj when invited by the remaining lords of the K'iche' after the catastrophic defeat of the K'iche' army in the Quetzaltenango valley."—not quite sure, but I think I've heard some other WPedians argue that the comma after the year is un-British.

• I've obviously been reading too many sources in American English! Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Kaqchikel appear to have entered into an alliance with the Spanish in order to defeat their enemies"—'in order to' is an unnecessarily verbose formulation; try 'to' instead.

• Done.

• "A Kaqchikel priest foretold that the Kaqchikel gods would destroy the Spanish and the Kaqchikel people abandoned their city and fled to the forests and hills on 28 August 1524 (7 Ahmak in the Kaqchikel calendar)."—another garden path sentence: When I read it, I first thought that the priest foretold that both the Spanish and the Kaqchikel people would be destroyed! I would swap the 'and' for a semicolon or an em-dash.

• Hah, that's what it looked like to me too! Fixed.

• "A day later they were joined by many nobles and their families and many more people and then surrendered at the new Spanish capital at Ciudad Vieja."—and...and...and... At least the final one could be replaced by some fancy semicolon construction.

• Done.

• "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years but on 9 May 1530, exhausted by the warfare that had seen the deaths of their best warriors and the enforced abandonment of their crops"—'on 9 May 1530' is a parenthetical phrase; please put a comma after 'but'.

Done.

• "Conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo recounted how in 1526 he returned to Iximche and spent the night in the "old city of Guatemala" together with Luis Marín and other members of Hernán Cortés's expedition to Honduras."—the lack of a def article before 'Conquistador' creates a tabloid-ish sound in my head; I think The Guardian's style guide also recommends against the non-def use. --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Added the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – 'tis a lay-friendly and accessible article. Well done. Eisfbnore ^talk 08:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eisfbnore. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the lead image so huge?

• I've changed this to 300px as recommended for a lead image at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, can't say I see much difference on my screen though. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• PD-old requires that you also include a US PD tag

• I've had a look at the PD-US tags over on Commons and I'm not sure which one to use, maybe PD-1996? Simon Burchell (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Depends on the image - File:Bartolome_de_las_casas.jpg, File:Alvarado.jpeg and File:CartedAmerique.jpeg should either be PD-US or PD-1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• All done.

• File:Guatemala_Topography.png: what is SRTM?

• That would be Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hernán_Cortés,_Museo_de_América.jpg: source link seems to be broken

• I've put in a link to Waybackmachine. The original pic doesn't seem to have been captured by the archive (just a broken frame) but the click to see larger version does work. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Bartolomedelascasas.jpg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Imported from English wikipedia(!) Original file long gone by the looks of it. I can replace it with File:Bartolome de las casas.jpg, which was taken from Bartholomew de Las Casas; his life, apostolate, and writings by Francis Augustus MacNutt, 1909 (available at Project Gutenberg, just scroll down slighlty). Simon Burchell (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've swapped the images over. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, but if you're claiming author+70 you really should include author name on the description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, this should be really obvious, but 3D works like File:Maya-Maske.jpg need to account for the copyright status of the work itself as well as the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped the approximate date of creation (AD 250-600) onto the description page, with ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for comming back! I believe I've sorted out everything. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment about the table. I've made it accessible by adding row and col scopes, but I note that if you wish it to be sortable, I think you need to fix the dates column to sort correctly (i.e. by date), probably using the {{dts}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I've long wondered how to get dates to sort in tables. Any idea how to get the "February - March 1524" to sort correctly (sort as February 1524 but displayed as "February-March 1524" would be fine)? All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. You could use the {{dtsh}} template to sort as February 1524 and then just have "February-March 1524" as free text straight afterwards, I think that'd do the trick! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perfect! All sorting fine now - many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome, glad to be of assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Question The table has no citations. Is all the information contained within the table also present elsewhere in the article? If not then the source(s) for the info in the table should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's right, all the info is taken from the article body and is cited in the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• Thanks to Eisfbnore for working on the prose here; there are only two things I'm sure I disagree with. I don't like the first comma in "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years but, on 9 May 1530, exhausted by ...", and I moved the comma in front of the "but". Perhaps I'm to blame here if I got an earlier version of WP:Checklist wrong ... I'm not sure, but I tried to be careful to say that if there's a comma before the parenthetical phrase, then you need a comma after, and not the other way around, that is, a comma coming after doesn't absolutely require a comma before (although I always stop and ponder where the "breath" is most likely to come). Also, I've always liked the style guide of the Guardian when I've consulted it, and if they say this is important, I'd like to know, but I'm pretty sure it's fine with just about everyone to start a sentence with "Conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo". I'm guessing the Guardian is objecting to sentences like "Farmer Jones said ...". - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit I prefer it as it originally read "Conquistador Bernal Diaz..." rather than "The conquistador Bernal Diaz...", which sounds rather forced to my ear... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest you change every "upon" to "on" except for two: "upon the initial approach" and "upon the approach".

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with great tenacity, causing the conquest of the Maya to last almost two centuries.": See WP:Checklist#cause. I'd go with: "the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with such tenacity that their conquest took almost two centuries." - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus is reading this now, and it's British English, so ... I'm going to move on, but if I can help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input - best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh dear, I hope you haven't left because of me Dank. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just saw this ... Heh, no, it wasn't "OMG it's Malleus, everyone out of the pool!" I meant that with supports from (hopefully) you and Eisfbnore, I'm probably not needed to get it over the hump, and I'm stretched as it is, so ... very much obliged, and if I can help with anything (here or elsewhere), please give me a shout. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on formulation of specific sentence in section Conquest of Petén:

"The Franciscan friar Andrés de Avendaño oversaw a second attempt to overcome the Itza in 1695, convincing the Itza king that the K'atun 8 Ajaw, a twenty-year Maya calendrical cycle beginning in 1696 or 1697, was the right time for the Itza to finally embrace Christianity and to accept the king of Spain as overlord. However the Itza had local Maya enemies who resisted this conversion and in 1696 Avendaño was also fortunate to get away alive." [my italics]

The text I marked in italics is a bit puzzling and may need clarifying, i.e., it appears to imply the Itza may have been ready for conversion this time, but instead of going along with the Franciscans, decided to chase them away, because their (the Itza's) enemies were against it. This seems contradictory. -- Arjuno (talk 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Arjuno - I've rephrased to ...in 1696 Avendaño was fortunate to get away without these hostile Maya killing him. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. I like this article, and will likely support its promotion once I've read the whole thing, but I really do hate inconsistency; is it "Guatemalan Highlands" or "Guatemalan highlands"?

• Scholarly sources (in English and Spanish) use caps and treat it as a placename, so I've changed every instance of "Guatemalan highlands" to "Guatemalan Highlands". In those places where "highlands" stands alone (so is not a placename) I've left it with the small "h". Please let me know what you think. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think that's fine. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Impact of Old World diseases

• This is just a question to which the answer may be obvious, but I'm struck that there's no mention of the Spanish being affected by New World diseases such as yellow fever or malaria. Even at the end of the 19th century those two accounted for a large number of construction workers excavating the Panama Canal.

• All of my sources concentrate on the Spanish impact upon Guatemala rather than the opposite - I have seen mentions in Spanish primary accounts of fever etc. although exact diseases weren't so easily identifiable. Malaria was an Old World disease so wouldn't have had any effect until some time after the conquest. Yellow fever was also an Old World disease. The only significant New World disease seems to have been syphilis but I'm having a lot of trouble tracking down sources for Guatemala, or of diseases affecting the conquistadors in general. It seems to be a chronically understudied area. In the "Fall of Nojpetén" section there is mention of disease badly affecting the colonists. Anyway, I'll see what I can dig up, if anything. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Subjugation of the K'iche'

• "Their resistance failed and the conquistadors crossed the river and ransacked nearby settlements in order to terrorise the K'iche' resistance. On 8 February 1524, after forcing their way across the river, Alvarado's army fought a battle at Xetulul ...". Presumably the ransacked settlements were on the other side of the river? But why are we being told twice that the Spanish crossed the river?

• Good point. I've cut "after forcing their way across the river". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kaqchikel rebellion

• "The Spaniards abandoned Tecpán in 1527 ...". Why is "Spaniards" linked in that sentence, and why are they called Spaniards here and "Spanish" almost everywhere else?

• No good reason - I originally wrote this section for the Iximche article, I think, and the language and link are a holdover from that. I've changed both. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "A day later they were joined by many nobles and their families and many more people". Many more people than what? It seems strange as well to say "a day later", as no date was given in the preceding sentence for when the two kings "returned from the wilds".

• The preceding sentence is "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years, but on 9 May 1530, exhausted by the warfare that had seen the deaths of their best warriors and the enforced abandonment of their crops, the two kings of the most important clans returned from the wilds.", so a date was given for when the kings returned. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Land of War: Verapaz

• "In response a punitive expedition was launched, headed by Juan Matalbatz, an indigenous leader from Chamelco; the independent Indians that the Q'eqchi' expedition captured were taken back to Cobán and resettled in Santo Tomás Apóstol." Is the Q'eqchi' expedition the one led by Juan Matalbatz? If so, it seems odd to introduce its name here, when the only prior mention of the Q'eqchi' is that they had been relocated, and the friar was murdered by the Acala and their Lacandon allies, apparently not by the Q'eqchi'. And what does "independent Indians" mean?

• The expedition was a colonial Q'eqchi' expedition and the "independent Indians" means those Indians still not subjugated by Spain. I've changed "an indigenous leader" to "a Q'eqchi' leader". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lake Izabal and the lower Motagua River

• "The new settlement immediately suffered a drop in population, but although they were reported extinct before 1613 in some sources, Mercedarian friars were still attending to Amatique Toquegua in 1625." That doesn't quite work; "they" is presumably meant to refer to "population", but that's a singular noun, and to compound the problem it looks like "they" is referring back to the subject of the preceding clause, "the new settlement". Needs rewriting in some way I think.

• I've rephrased to "The new settlement immediately suffered a drop in population, but although the Amatique Toquegua were reported extinct before 1613 in some sources, Mercedarian friars were still attending to them in 1625." Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Much better. Reading the original again, it even looks like it might be the Mercedarian friars who were reported extinct. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Heh! That raised a smile...always good to have a fresh eye! Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  What a great ghost story that would make; the extinct friars attending to a deserted settlement. More seriously, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear that I've almost finished reading through, just a couple more sections to go. Thanks for dealing with my no doubt irritating nitpicks so quickly and patiently. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking so much time to go through it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "During the same campaign to conquer the Itza of Petén ...". Why is it saying "the same campaign"? The same campaign as what?

• I've dropped the "same", which was referring to the events of the next section and isn't really necessary. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Subjugation of the K'iche'

• "With the destruction of Q'umarkaj and the execution of its rulers, Pedro de Alvarado sent messages to Iximche, capital of the Kaqchikel, proposing an alliance against the remaining K'iche' resistance." Starting this sentence of with "with" implies that the message being sent was the destruction of the town and the executions, but that can't be the case if Pedro was also proposing an alliance.

• I've changed "with" to "after". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a great piece of work, really excellent, especially as it's such a helluva span to try and cover. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Malleus - that was a heroic copyedit. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken-Hearted Girl

Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I like the song and I have worked a lot on the article. It has also been copy-edited by another editor and I am very thankful to him. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. Your help and suggestions are most welcome. With the essential being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Jivesh boodhun. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - This is not my area of expertise, but at the nominator's request I ran an eye over the prose, and found nothing to grumble at. As far as I can see, this article is comprehensive, well-balanced, and the nominator's enthusiasm for the performer has not led him into gush. It seems to me to meet FAC criteria. Well done! Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Excellent AmE style compliance, I couldn't find anything significant to comment on in the lead. Some nitpicks:

• I don't think it's all too necessary to wikilink production here
  • Completely re-worded sentence due to concern raised below. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "and gain some perspective" Anything in particular the perspective was to be gained on?
  • I didn't find anything related to this in the body of the article so this part of the sentence was removed all together. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Will read through soon. Auree ^★★ 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, done reading through. I made a light copy-edit, please review. The article is generally well written, but I have some concerns:

• "I suppose many of our songs are in minor keys. We probably lean towards more a moody, melodic expression. It's what comes most natural[ly] for us." Has the quoted text here really been modified for reader convenience, or has it been corrected? If the latter, consider using [sic] instead.
  • I removed the "[ly]". However, I did not add a [sic] because I didn't think it is a very obvious error that will intrigue an average reader and I think we can get away with it because it is an interview. I can add the sic if needed anyway, though. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of Writing and production, there are three consecutive sentences with the same inline citation; citing only the last sentence would suffice.
  • Removed the second instance. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Is it correct to address the music video protagonist by "Knowles"?
  • I've copy edited the section. Instances of "Knowles" and "the singer" have been replaced with "the protagonist", "the woman" and "Knowles' character". Let me know if this is confusing. I'll be happy to re-work it. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Better, although a few "she"s here and there wouldn't hurt either

• Replaced one instance with "she". I tried not to overdo it due to repetition. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "she is desirous of spending" Tighten to "she wants to spend"?
  • Tightened. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "produced a new version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" to be marketed in European territories." Slightly awkward
  • Re-worded to "... produced a different version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" that was released in Europe." —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• What is a "maxi single"?
  • Linked to the article. Will this suffice? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• We read ""Broken-Hearted Girl" received a favorable response from most music critics, who appreciated Knowles' vocals and the piano backing, but were unimpressed with the production", but quite frankly, the following doesn't quite tell us in what ways they were unimpressed with the production. What exactly is meant to be said here?
  • Good observation. I only found one review which dismissed the arrangement. I re-worded it to a more neutral "... who commented the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." I did a similar thing in the lead. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Nissim concluded that "the emotion-filled vocals offer yet more proof that [Knowles] is one of the finest pop singers of her generation", but "Broken-Hearted Girl" is unfortunately not as catchy as her best work" The latter part with "unfortunately" is unquoted, but reads like editorial opinion. Either include that part in the quote or remove "unfortunately".
  • I added an "although" before the quotation and removed "but unfortunately". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• The repetition of "on which it" in the Chart performance section gets a bit tedious after a while. Can we add some variety here?
  • Added variety with re-structuring. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Also, check throughout for stubby, closely related sentences that could be combined (e.g. "In Australia, "Broken-Hearted Girl" debuted at number twenty-eight on the ARIA Singles Chart on September 21, 2009.[55] The following week, it ascended to number fifteen.[55]" and "On October 5, 2009, the song reached its peak position at number fourteen, and remained there for an additional week.[55] It lasted for nine consecutive weeks on the chart.") Again, watch out for duplicate consecutive inline citations.
  • Have thoroughly checked and combined sentences and checked for repeated redundant citations. Any citation that was consecutively placed three or more times was fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Any notable negative reception of her music video? Auree ^★★ 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I did a search and found nothing from highly trusted reliable sources. I'll see if Jivesh finds anything.
    A huge thanks for a great review and copy edit. I think your suggestions have helped a lot for the article's best. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, all of your changes look good and have much improved the prose. I'll be happy to support in due time, although I would like to see some input from other reviewers before doing so. Good luck! Auree ^★★ 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing negative about the video. Seems like Beyonce won the critics with her panda eyes. :) And thanks Auree. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• It might be worth noting that some of the refs require having iTunes to access

• May I know which ones Nikki? I don't think there are ones like that. All of them work irrespective of having or not having iTunes. I don't have iTunes, yet they work for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was trying to open FNs 33 and 34, to see why they looked exactly the same. 34 loaded normally as a website, but for 33 I got a message saying it was trying to connect to iTunes. There are several other pairs of iTunes refs that look the same - I just tried 35 and 36, and 36 opened my iTunes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I found FNs 34 and 36 to require iTunes so I put "iTunes required" in the format parameter. But I'm not sure if these coincide with references that you found to be connecting to iTunes. If that's the case, would you suggest a "may require iTunes" for all iTunes references? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Excite is owned by IAC Search & Media, which is a subsidiary of InterActive Corporation (IAC).
• Allkpop is a well-known website in Korea. Owned and operated by parent company 6Theory Media, it generates more Web traffic than any Korean music portal in South Korea. Exclusive interviews with celebrities include Brian Joo, SECRET, Block B, 2PM, Wonder Girls, Girls' Generation, Girl's Day, 2NE1 who covered the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Need more - do we know who the authors are, what the site editorial policies are? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For both? I thought I was clear enough for the second. It should not be regarded differently just because it is not a website based in the US or the UK. I can remove the first nevertheless. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nikki, I have removed the first one. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comments

(Resolved comments from Two Hearted River moved to talk page)

• I have strong reservations about the utility of reference [11] – it seems to be riffing on general themes in Knowles' music and not describing this song specficially

• It describes the song and her music in general. Well, I won't doubt someone having written for BBC for ages. What you think about an established writer does not matter. Let alone the time you claimed what an established filmmaker said about "Single Ladies" was false. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion of this writer, I'm only considering his words. The only indication this article is about BHG is the title. And in the first sentence he says he's going to "plot out the arc of an entire relationship using just Beyoncé and Destiny's Child songs as narrative", and then he does it. We don't know what parts are about this song particularly without original research. You should not use this reference. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not removing. I suggest you read the ENTIRE article again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Is it possible, do you suppose, to plot out the arc of an entire relationship using just Beyoncé and Destiny's Child songs as narrative? To the extent where you could make a film of it, without any dialogue, just songs, and it would all make sense? ... [This song will] take place shortly after things have really started to go wrong, but before they go really REALLY wrong. ... He'll be out, doing her wrong, and she'll be at home, curled into a photogenic corner..." – This song's video only shows her in a car and on a beach, so apparently the writer plucked that image from another song. Which parts of the article describe this song specifically? Without original research, we don't know. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, he is talking about the song itself. Not the video. He only put a link to the video. Nearly, all critics do that. At least, he only left a link to it while others post the video itself in their review. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even if he never watched the video, I don't believe we know without original research that only BHG is being described. Anyway, you can leave as is and when we've finished going through the entire article I will restate my concern for the FA director/delegate to consider. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even if he never watched the video - where is the relation? And I won't believe what you believe is right. I will only go by what the critic said. And he clearly wrote this sentence, This song, thankfully, won't be part of that hour. No, it'll take place shortly after things have really started to go wrong, but before they go really REALLY wrong ... and then started to describe the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Next round:

• "'Broken-Hearted Girl' received a favorable response from most music critics, who commented on the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." – Yes, those are the aspects we would expect critics to scrutinize.

• Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• One other thing about this: If the reviews you've selected for inclusion are representative (as they should be), they look mixed to me, not favorable. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• But generally, aren't they favorable? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's how I see them:

Positive: Riva, Lustig, Nissim, Spence D.

Mixed/neither: Brew-Hammond, McGuire, Sterdan, Westhoff

Negative: EDP, Matos, Suarez

If "favorable" describes a clear majority of the reviews you've seen, then I guess you've seen some that you didn't include here; feel free to add a few more. Otherwise I think the reviews are "mixed". Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't forget that I had to remove two positive ones because of you. Anyway, I am changing to mixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Elysa Gardner of USA Today listed Broken-Hearted Girl" as one of the songs from I Am... Sasha Fierce to 'consider' hearing." – Eh, this is meaningless without her reasoning.

• No, it's not. This is critical reception. Most magazines do this. They include a song for worth hearing/standout/a must and one that is bad according to them. And you have no right to say what an established critic said is meaningless. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine for magazines, but Wikipedia is not a magazine. The sentence doesn't provide a meaningful frame of reference because I don't know what Gardner thinks of the album on the whole. If she thinks the album is horrible, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement to say BHG is a song to "consider" listening to. But if she thinks it's the album of the decade, that's a different story. What would you have the reader take away from this sentence? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Darryl Sterdan of Jam! called it a "grand-piano ballad" that may stand out from pop songs on a regular studio album." – I didn't understand why until I read the original sentence. Please reword to explain fully.

• I tried. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...described the song as a 'romantic-comedy soundtrack fare'..."

• Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Readers less familiar with Celine Dijon and Aretha Franklin would find it helpful if you inserted "pop" and "soul", respectively, before their names.

• Who is Dijon? Anyway, done. But frankly, I really can't see why we need to list the singers' genres here. I have wiki-linked their names and that should have been more than enough as long as "Broken-Hearted Girl" is not part of their discography. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• If the inclusion of a word obviates the need for some readers to follow the link to understand the sentence, it's worth doing. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• They had already been added. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...noted that it is ballad..." – missing word

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...Knowles' own 2008 single..."

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...Dion would be proud of their 'insipid [and] sentimental' balladry." – their?

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...one that shows Knowles' growth and progress as a songwriter." – "Progress" doesn't say anything that "growth" didn't already.

• Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "A writer of Rolling Stone wrote that Knowles 'rescues "Broken-Hearted Girl" from sentimental schlock'." – This sentence made me ask myself, "How?" A look at the original didn't provide any answers, so I suggest dropping this sentence.

• Sorry but I won't. This is critical reception not a lawyer fighting a case in court where he has to provide all the explanations. You cannot expect critic to evaluate everything. I hope you do realize that sometimes you ask for too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• We don't include critics' comments just because they exist, they have to tell us something insightful (this follows from WP:EDITDISC). I can think of a few ways Knowles might "rescue" the song and a few ways the song might qualify as "sentimental schlock", but who knows whether any combination matches the RS writer's? He leaves us guessing – again, fine for a magazine, not so much for Wikipedia. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Initially, I didn't see a reason for the paragraph break, but it looks as if the second paragraph deals with specific aspects of the recording, while the first contains more general comments. Is that intentional? If so, the second paragraph could use an introductory sentence preparing the reader for its contents. (Here's an example of how I've done it.)

• It was intentional and a paragraph break is always welcome. Digesting 18 lines in a row discourages viewers to read what has been written. With a paragraph break, it seems more believable. And thanks for your example. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Mayer Nissim of Digital Spy awarded "Broken-Hearted Girl" three stars out of five..." – The star rating doesn't provide any insight.

• It provides one. Or else, they would have stopped giving ratings since ages. Anyway, I have removed it because I do not want to break another coffee mug. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• It might provide one if we read Nissim's reviews every day, but since we don't, we're left to guess what 3/5 means to him. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• It had already been removed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...prevent it from being..." -> "...prevent the song from being..."

• Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...noting that the hook line 'rings false'." – Just use the actual lyric; we haven't been able to establish through a reliable source that the line in questions is the hook.

• Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thurman Tucker

Nominator(s): Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those who are familiar with me may have seen Operation Big Bear in my signature, and may or may not know much of said project. Well, here's the first FAC for this project, and presuming I remain interested in the project, it should be the first of many.

Thurman Tucker was a baseball player in the 1940s and early 1950s, who made his mark in the mid-1940s. He developed a reputation as a great fielder, and a good enough hitter that he was okay to leave in the lineup. He usually split time with other players in the lineup, including when he was on the World Championship 1948 Indians (see OBB above). Once 1950 rolled around, he lost a step and was pretty much done as a player. He may be far from the biggest name on that World Series-winning team (I'll get to the more exciting ones soon enough), but he lives on as a result of that season. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Review by Wrestlinglover; Result: Support on all criteria

Lead

• "In 701 career games, Tucker recorded a batting average of .255, and accumulated 24 triples, 9 home runs, and 179 runs batted in (RBI)." - Remove the second comma.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He was nicknamed "Joe E." Tucker because of his resemblance to comedian Joe E. Brown." - This piece of information is not featured in the article. His resemblance is, however, the nickname I did not see noted.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After his retirement, he became a major league scout and insurance agent. He died in 1993." - Merge them: "After his retirement, he became a major league scout and insurance agent before his death in 1993."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• As for the infobox, I've noticed some of the information noted is not elsewhere in the article outside the lead, such as his left-handed batting, right-handed pitching, and his overall career statistics.--WillC 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "Thurman Tucker was born and raised in Gordon, Texas." - Include his middle name and birthday, such as "Thurman Lowell Tucker was born on September 26, 1917, and raised in Gordon, Texas.".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "At high school, he was a three-sport athlete, playing baseball (where he was a second baseman), basketball, and track and field." - Switch "At high school" to "In high school" or "During high school".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After graduating in 1935, he played semi-professional baseball, and enrolled in a baseball school located in Hot Springs, Arkansas." - Remove the second comma--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1936, aged 18, Tucker signed as a professional with the Fayetteville Bears of the Arkansas-Missouri League, but left the team after only two weeks, without playing a game." - Change to "In 1936 at age 18, Tucker..."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor league career

• "After recovering from the injury, Tucker continued to progress through the minors, and spent the 1938 season with two separate clubs;" - Change to "After recovering from the injury, Tucker continued to progress through the minors, spending the 1938 season with two separate clubs;"--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "During his first few years in the minor leagues, one manager asked him to take up clowning due to his resemblance to Joe E. Brown; as someone who was on the serious side, Tucker was against the idea, and it was dropped." - I don't really see how this is notable to his life exactly. This is more like trivia to me. I feel the second part should be changed to "Tucker objected due to his serious nature and the idea was later dropped."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "At spring training for the 1942 season, Tucker competed with Dave Philley for the final outfield spot." - Switch to "Tucker competed against Dave Philley".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Change "White Sox management liked his defensive abilities, and as a result Tucker was on the major league roster on opening day, making his major league debut on April 14, 1942." to "White Sox management liked Tucker's defensive abilities, leading to them adding Tucker to their 1942 major league roster; Tucker made his major league debut on April 14, 1942."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicago White Sox

• "Only Wally Moses of the Chicago White Sox outfielders was assured of a place at the beginning of the 1943 season." - Reference?--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Owing to his achievements, Tucker was named to the All-Star roster for the only time in his career." - Sounds a bit odd, I suggest "Owing to his achievements, Tucker was added to the 1944 All-Star roster for the only time in his career."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After returning to regular play, Tucker platooned with Philley, and he finished the season with a .236 batting average in 89 games." - Wouldn't "platooned" be jargon?--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians

• "Tucker also participated in game six of the 1948 World Series, scoring a run in the sixth inning on a walk en route to a 4–3 win for the Indians." - Remove "also", its getting repetitive as the previous sentence has it as well.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Later life

• Good--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• All appear reliable in my view.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links

• Everything appears necessary and useful, however, there is a hidden category. Its Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter, which would mean one of the templates is acting up. I've had this type of issue with the wrestling portal recently.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

• Only one image is featured, I assume as there are no more available? The image has no alt text or a caption, which would be useful. The image appears to have the correct licensing.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually familiar with your Operation having checked it out before. You got a battle ahead of you, but I see the determination as I've got a few myself. Anyway, here are some comments. I've attempted to give a very in-depth review to help as much as I can. You've reviewed several articles I've written in the past, I thought I'd return the favor.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues fixed for the most part; did not add the middle name to early life since it doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to me. The Joe E. reference is slightly trivial, but does provide insight into his personality, which helps with the article. The Wally Moses ref is in the following sentence, I can repeat it for both if needed. Lastly, there is only one image available, and it took me a while to find even that. I could add in a free image of someone else (such as Philley or perhaps Hornsby) if it's desired. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: I peer reviewed this article and had another look before this nomination, doing some copy-editing both times. All my concerns were addressed and I think this is a good piece of work. I cannot comment on the quality of sourcing, but the article seems comprehensive to me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Quite a few issues in the writing and style for a modest-sized article, but they should be fixable without too much fuss.

• I see no need to link the White Sox twice in the lead. Same goes for the Indians.
• Also, World War II is such a well-known event that I doubt it needs the link.
• Chicago White Sox: To me, the first sentence of the section would read better as "Of the Chicago White Sox outfielders at the beginning of the 1943 season, only Wally Moses was assured of a place on the team."
• "causing his batting average to shrink from .345 to .327 and in the process losing his status as league leader." The "and in the process losing" doesn't work well with the rest of the sentence. Not sure how to fix it; would "causing a batting average drop from .345 to .327 that resulted in him losing his status as league leader."?
• "After his average fell to .320 after hitting once in 35 at bats." He hit in each of his at bats; he just wasn't always successful at it. How about "after recording one base hit in 35 at bats."?
• "His form recovered in the second half of the season, finishing the year...". The part after the comma doesn't go well with what comes before it. Try "and he finished the year...".
• Don't need two platoon links in three sentences. I know it's jargony, but that's a bit much.
• Cleveland Indians: The "also" in "and also ended the season with a perfect fielding percentage of 1.000" is redundant and should be removed to make the prose a shade better.
• "both attempted to make the Indians roster to secure their position on the team". Don't "to make the Indians roster" and "to secure their place on the team" really mean the same thing?
• Ref 40 doesn't verify that Tucker's move to the PCL ended his major league career, and I don't think that's fully accurate; he just never got called up again by the Indians or another team. Perhaps making it clear that the April 29 game was his last MLB game would solve this issue. Baseball-Reference includes the last appearances of players, so you wouldn't need another cite to insert that.
• Later life: The Oklahoma City Indians and Texas League links are both repeats from earlier in the body.
• At the end of the section's first paragraph, and start of the third, there are consecutive cites to the same reference. When this happens, it's usually okay to just have a reference for the last sentence that covers both. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Issues fixed. Kept the WWII link in since while it is very common, it's not a link you'd necessarily expect in a baseball article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Support – All of my comments have been resolved, and I believe this meets all of the FA criteria.

  Images: the only photo is of a 1951 Bowman baseball card, which appears to be legitimately in the public domain due to a lack of copyright renewal. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All comments noted at this point have been addressed as of this writing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Source comprehensiveness check. A quick check of the sources doesn't indicate any issues. All the given sources in this article are considered to be reliable sources. For people who are unfamiliar with The Sporting News, it's considered to be one of the finest sources that are available relating to baseball. It was an baseball only publication for nearly 75 years and was edited by one of the most renowed sports journalists of the era J. G. Taylor Spink. Baseball Reference is the most widely used source online regarding baseball stats, and also the most reliable. Secret ^account 05:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HMS Queen Mary

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The last British battlecruiser completed before World War I began, this ship had only a brief career before she blew up during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. This article had a MilHist ACR last April and I've revised it slightly to meet the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class:
  • The para which begins "Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors" doesn't actually compare this ship's dimensions to those of the Lion class
    • The differences in dimensions were fairly trivial, but added up to a significant difference in displacement, which is given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Following complaints from the Fleet" - should 'Fleet' be capitalised?
    • That's how it's given in my source, but I can go either way since it's an implicit proper noun. Like the (US or Royal) Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What's a 'cruising stage'?
    • Lemme add a definition somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Was the ship always intended to be an 'orphan', or were others ships of her design planned but not built?
    • She was a singleton as the pattern by that time was to authorize one battlecruiser as part of the tranche of capital ships every year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you add some material explaining this? Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Ping: this comment is still outstanding, and is the only reason I haven't moved to 'support' (though I have no objections to the article being promoted in it's current excellent state). Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • More generally, details on the decision to build this ship and the selection of the design are needed - these are included in most other FA level articles on warships.
    • Lemme see, but I don't think that there's actually much out there as she was a slightly improved Lion so no major changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Added some additional details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command." - of this ship, or the squadron? (the entire section is about the squadron, so it's unclear)
    • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Queen Mary is not specifically mentioned in either the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' or 'Raid on Scarborough' sections. Can anything be said about the ship's role in these battles?
    • I don't think so as she was just conforming to Beatty's movements, but I'll check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Still need to check for anything specific in the raid, but I've checked every source I have access to, including Jellicoe's book on the Grand Fleet and a book on the battle, and no details are available on her activities during Heligoland Bight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope, nothing on her participation in the raid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (comment only) I know that it's in quite a few articles (many of which are FAs), but I find File:Scheer's illustration of I SG disposition 16 Dec. 1916 en.SVG really difficult to understand as some of the arrows depict distances between ships while other identical arrows show the direction ships were traveling in. The point in time at which these distances were relevant is also needed. I think that this image should be removed until it can be re-worked, but this won't affect my vote in this FAC given how many FAs its currently being used in. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But the measurements use hollow squares while ships use solid squares. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • ...I thought that one colour was for the Germans and the other the British. That this isn't the case is another flaw with the image, but as I said, it's not a deal breaker here. I'd strongly suggest re-working this image though. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gnangarra

General characteristics section;

• Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors... doesnt hold up 703ft compared to 700ft, beam of 80ft compared to beam of 88ft, draft of 32 4 compared to 32 5 two of the first three stats when compared are smaller. displacement is larger but height is again smaller 5.92 feet compared to 6. I think it would be better described as similar as the comparisons just dont hold up.
  • I had a typo for her beam, it's 89 feet, not 80. As I said to Nick-D above, those trivial differences added up a significantly greater displacement. Metacentric height is a measure of stability, not size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Armament v Fire control

• The armament gices the impressionthat asignificant change occurred with The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.(two sources) but when you read the fire control it says 'Queen Mary received her main battery director before the Battle of Jutland in 1916(third source) what happened its as if the change wasnt significant and barely notable. IMHO the fire control needs more detail about process before the change and what affect it had after the change.
• Fire control information looks like a copy/paste from Lion class battlecruiser yet there it has more detail about the system.
• see below for detailed thought, remove fire control section
  • Lemme see about this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Armour;

• opens The armour protection given to the Queen Mary was similar than that of the Lions. hmm similar to that maybe than is for where there are comparative differences where as similar is for less distinct difference, combine they just dont read well.
  • Typo of "than" changed to "to".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Heligoland Bight

• Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command the para starts in AUgust and continues through the battle, so where does the October date come from, why is it significant to the battle?
  • It's not, but otherwise it's a one-sentence paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Raid on Scarborough;

• Queen Mary was refitting in January and February 1915 and did not participate in the Battle of Dogger Bank.[24] looks a little lonely/lost I realise its putitng things in cronological order so maybe its a chance to address the fire control issues in a new section that covers the actual refit and what took place along with absence note from the battle of Dogger Bank.
  • Unfortunately, I do not know exactly when the ship actually received her fire-control directors. It may well have been this refit, but it likely wasn't the only refit that she received before Jutland. It's just the only one that I can document.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland;

• last paragraph maybe used to create an Aftermath type section rather than being tacked onto the end, at the moment the story feels like its just been left hanging.
  • Good idea, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Beside this the images are PD as the diagram no issues there, otherwise an Interesting read Gnangarra 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • I think that "Aftermath" should be its own top-level section, rather than part of "Service", since it deals with a much later time period and a wholly different context.
    • Good idea.
  • "She was refitting during the Battle of Dogger Bank in early 1915" in the lead makes it seem like she was refitted right there in the middle of a battle. The body text makes this clear, but what battle she missed is not important enough to be in the lead, just say she was refitted during early 1915.
    • Reworded, but the name of the battle was given.
  • "She was the last battlecruiser completed before the war" is given in the lead but never presented or sourced in the article body. Also not sure what the significance of this is in terms of being in the lead.
    • Sourced.
  • "and exploded shortly afterwards" in the lead indicates there was some lag, whereas the article body indicates the ship broke in two right away.
    • No time interval was specified in the main body since it's uncertain exactly how long it took.
  • Was C. I. Prowse still captain at the time of the sinking?
    • Yes.
  • I'd repeat the link for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 when it occurs again at the end of the article.
    • Why? There's a cite and link to the actual document there.
  • The 1,266 figure is stated twice close together in the article body. I think the second instance could just say "the lost officers and men". However, it would be good to include this figure in the lead.
    • Rewritten.
  • "Her wreck was discovered in 1991 and rests partly upside-down, on sand, 60 metres (197 ft) down." is given in the lead but these facts are never presented or sourced in the article body.
    • I'll see if I can find a cite for the depth.
      • Deleted as I couldn't find a RS cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that this was a battlecruiser, but there's no analysis later of whether this 'battlecruiserness' was a factor in her blowing up so quickly.
    • None of my sources make any conclusion about the issue since the exact cause of her destruction is still unknown.
  • The article lacks any analysis of whether her design departures from the Lion class make her better or worse.
    • That would be OR since none of my sources make any such judgements about her.
  • The article needs some historical context about Beatty, battlecruisers, and Jutland. Not to re-hash the whole story but just to indicate that there is a story. Consider that if this article ends up on the main page, readers will come to it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There are links for all that stuff; the focus here is the ship. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure about using "Great Britain" as an author
  • That's how it's cited in Worldcat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Where is Greenwich? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that there's always one! Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is rather short and fails to summarise the article. It could do with another couple of paragraphs.
  • Lemme see what I can do, but I'm not going to try to summarize the technical details of the design as that would just be redundant.
    • Lengthened slightly, but not a whole lot to work with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• The lead image lacks alt text; in fact the alt text for all the images should be reviewed since I've now seen another couple of images lacking alt text, or with extremely short alt text. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt text is not a requirement at FAC.
    • I see it's been pulled since the last time I was at FAC. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• There seem to be a few terms that still need to be wikilinked, such as "deep load". "direct-drive steam turbines" should be linked to both Direct drive mechanism and Steam turbine. There are probably more terms that can use wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Added more lots more links. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A little more

• "Transmitting Station" (in Fire Control section) - does this need to be capitalised? Also should be wikilinked (or redlinked) to something - plotting room is the closest I could find but probably isn't appropriate... Simon Burchell (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Linked, although plotting room isn't a bad link if it were expanded beyond the coast defense usage that the article has now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've dropped in another dozen or so links, you might want to check them to make sure they're going to an appropriate destination. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox:

Complement uncited

Good catch, done.

The precision in the conversions from imperial to metric is different in the infobox and the prose, some examples: 703 feet 6 inches (214 m) vs. 703 ft 6 in (214.4 m); 89 feet 0.5 inches (27.140 m) vs. 89 ft 0.5 in (27.1 m)

Rounding errors, fixed.

• Draft or Draught?

Good catch.

• 9-inch vs. six-inch? 9 inches vs. six inches?

Fixed.

• Change Midshipman Storey -> Midshipman Jocelyn Latham Storey (that may not be the right link). Kirk (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not linked so I can't tell if it's the same person or not. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:MHU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• I can't get an image for "partly upside-down" (and it doesn't have a hyphen when it's not in front of a noun, per M-W) ... is part of the ship upside down? "Bottom of the North Sea" sometimes conveys a sense of the deeper parts of the North Sea ... I haven't seen the nautical maps but I wouldn't expect this to be true. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded and changed bottom to floor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Capcom Five

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria. It was promoted to GA and I am prepared to address any concerns about the gap between GA and FA. With this article, I tried to place the Capcom Five in its proper historical context—part of the ongoing relationship between Nintendo and Capcom. Hope you like it! Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Resolved comments from Mark Arsten moved to talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, at this point I think all of the issues that I was able to find have been satisfied and I'm now willing to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for all your helpful comments! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Comment: The article looks in good shape and I'm leaning towards supporting it (though I would say that, I reviewed it at GAN). I've tackled most of the overlinking thanks to Ucucha's script; I've left the links to the individual games in their relevant headings there for the time being but I'm now thinking that perhaps unlinking them there and using {{Main}} to provide the same navigational function would be a better approach. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the help. I feel that adding Main links might disrupt the flow more than it needs to (it's already suboptimal to have the 3rd level headings for each game). Do you notice any prose issues? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've kept an eye on the changes being made here, and I'm more than willing to support now. Nice work, and I'd love to see this as the head of a featured topic some time in the future. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! Axem Titanium (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• "to reach a wider audience and maximize profitability" - source?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Check for typos in references (ex. FN 7) and minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Those doubled periods are because passing in "Foo Inc." into the publisher parameter of cite web doesn't remove the excess period. I just removed the Incs. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
  • Nintendojo. Destructoid is a "situational source" according to WP:VG/S; the Destructoid article is by Jim Sterling, who also works for IGN UK (he also authored Fn 79). Looking into others... Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry I've been absent this week. Two presentations, whew! Anyway, I replaced the NerdMentality ref with one from VG247, which is approved by WP:VG/S. I also replaced Pietriots with Edge magazine. I removed Brainy Gamer, Infendo, and N-Europe. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks. The Nintendojo discussion you link suggests it is situational, so need a bit more info on why that would apply here. Could you also link the VG/S discussion for VG24/7? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • VG247. The Nintendojo article was written by Adam Sorice, who has since been promoted to co-Editor-in-Chief, which suggests that he has been praised for his editorial oversight. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• This link returns an error message - check for and fix broken links
  • Argh. The archive link used to work! Commented out. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using publisher or homepage
  • Not sure what you mean here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think she means the work parameter. You should stick to either publisher or work, not switch between them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok. I think I fixed that. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Also in how those are formatted - compare FNs 82 and 84 or 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Ah, I missed one. They should be consistent now. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 24, 46: page(s)?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 37: too many IGNs
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Check for wikilinking consistency
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• FN 44: issue?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with all your copyedits. What were you looking for in changing tone? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The spots I flagged - "another episode in Nintendo's perennial quest", for example - seem rather journalistic in tone. Try to word them a bit more formally. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I tried to work on the tone. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Better, but I'm not crazy about the "series is a symbol" verbiage, nor about "Learning from this experience, Capcom discovered a few principles..." Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Alright, I did some more compressing. How about now? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Much better. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Good to hear. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaws (film)

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) DocKino (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Martin Brody, my ship was sunken by an adversary willing to chew on me, and I'm taking shots at it. Lame jokes aside, I had already rewritten this Former Featured Article hoping to return its bronze star, and then during the last FAC User:DocKino joined and did a much-welcome copyedit. Now that my two weeks of waiting are done, I just want to see if I'm gonna need a bigger boat. igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to delegates: WP:FFA, has already been on main page, should this be promoted, it needs to be reflected in WP:FFA, and added to WP:FA as already having appeared on mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources comment: I think the main sources/citation issues were cleared at the previous FAC, but I notice one small point: there is duplication and/or overlapping in the page ranges of a number of the McBride citations, and for consistency these should be combined. Note, for example, cites 23, 24 and 30; cites 47 and 48; cites 84 and 117; cites 124 and 187. There may be other instances, although this does not seem to be a general problem. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

These citations are proper as stands. A citation of, for instance, pages 236–237 (cite 24) is not the same as a citation of page 237 (cite 23), nor should it be altered to appear the same. There is neither a "problem" nor an apparent correction to be made in this regard. DocKino (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. To me, the commonsense understanding is that "236–37" includes "237", and the same principle applies to the others I have mentioned. You have freely used combined references elsewhere in the article;, so what is so different about these? Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If something is mentioned only on one page in the range, why is it necessary to cite the full page range? I see no problem with either approach, and citing individual pages when applicable alongside ranges containing those individual pages is perfectly fine. Page N might contain the entirety of a quotation being used, whereas pages N–P contain a train of thought being summarised. Why cite the full range for something only contained on one of its pages, then? For the specific example being given, pp. 236–237 does contain p. 237, but a reader wishing to verify this with a book in hand shouldn't be directed to both pages when only one is used. GRAPPLE X 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Grapple X is correct. This is precisely the logic employed in the referencing in almost every one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of high-quality book sources on which we rely. Brian, I appreciate the detailed attention you brought to this point, but you are simply wrong here. Like virtually all other high-quality reference works, we properly cite the page or pages that are relevant and none other. DocKino (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is of course a very minor issue in the context of the article, and I apologise for labouring it. However, I don't accept that I am "wrong"; I do accept the reasoning behind the strategy that has been employed here, provided it is maintained consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe either approach is right or wrong, so long as it's consistent. I generally tend to use the style seen here myself, unless the article's references list has grown quite long, in which case I'll fold individual pages in with their parent ranges to clean things up a little. It's mostly down to personal choice, I believe. GRAPPLE X 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, if I may. I'm new to FAC, so delegates may wish to disregard this, but I personally can see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured acticle. It is top-class. --Lobo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support, with comments: I'll try and add to it as I go through, but just niggling things:

• Should really add some non-breaking spaces per WP:NBSP for figures like budget and such. I've done a few myself.
• "prompting effects divers to search for the lost shark, scaring a few in the process" --> Scaring the divers, presumably, after they happened on a shark in the seaweed. Could this be made a little more clear?

• I've reworded the passage, trimming the bit about the effects divers, which was a bit of a diversion there. DocKino (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

--I'll continue adding comments as I go through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The choice of word "watershed" in the second sentence seems unfortunate because of the clash with watershed (television). (Full disclosure: I had to look up what "watershed" meant, so I googled "watershed film" and ended up at watershed (television).) 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's being used with the third definition listed at wikt:watershed, though perhaps "watershed moment" would work better than "watershed film". For what it's worth, this meaning is what I tend to think of when using the term, though as a simple definition and not a concept, it doesn't have an article here to link to. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "watershed moment" seems better. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

While "watershed moment" does seem better, "the prototypical summer blockbuster" all by itself after that comma seems fragmented and peculiar, as if we're saying the "moment" is the blockbuster rather than the film...does this make sense to anyone? Maybe, "and is considered the prototypical summer blockbuster"? Or is that too complicated? Blake Burba (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How would "It is regarded as a watershed moment in motion picture history, becoming the prototypical summer blockbuster" read? GRAPPLE X 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads better, sure. Blake Burba (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to that, then. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More comments on the lead 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Taken in isolation, the words "professional shark hunter to hunt the shark" sound redundant.
• "Jaws was generally well received by critics, and it became the highest-grossing film in history to that point." -> When you write "to that point", what point is it? Probably clearer to write "at the time".
• "simple, "high-concept" premises" -> I find the comma after 'simple' to be unfortunate. Breaks the rhythm.
• "released in the summer at hundreds (now thousands) of theaters and supported by heavy advertising" -> The construction of the sentence could be revisited. It is difficult to tell 'released' refers to. Is it "premises", "business model"? Something is wrong here.
• Going back to when the article was first featured, the lead mentioned the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. I quick search revealed no mention of this event. This seems like a major hole in the article.
  • As mentioned in that old version, the book was inspired by the attacks. So, mentioning that is needed in Jaws (novel) (where it is done so), but not here. Done the rest. igordebraga ≠ 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Box office

Some of this information is erroneous; it didn't finish its original theatrical run with $129 million—this was the gross rental as opposed to the gross revenue. Jaws actually took something like $200 million on its original theatrical run, equating to about $115 million gross rental: [12]. Gross rental is the historic measuring system which is no longer in use, but many modern sources confuse it with revenue. Also the claim that it was the first $100 million grosser is incorrect. In fact, it was the third one after The Sound of Music and The Godfather (and Gone with the Wind via reissues): [13]. Again, this is most likely due to the confusion over gross rental and gross revenue, since with its $115 million gross rental it beat The Godfather ($81.5 million) and Gone with the Wind ($77 million): [14] (although all of these films made $100+ million in revenue). I would have gone ahead and corrected this, but it is under review and the problem is there are sources corroborating the incorrect claims, based on the misinterpretation of gross rental, so I thought I'd bring it here first. I notice this issue has been addressed in a previous review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jaws (film)/archive2) but wasn't acted upon. I'm happy to fix this for you (we also have international figures at List of highest-grossing films too which can be incorporated), so if no-one opposes my suggestions or wants to do it themselves I'll sort it out tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, when I researched for more BO data (after all it had at least 2 reissues) the word "rentals" came up frequently. Either I'll fix them, or you're welcome to do so, Betty. igordebraga ≠ 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've sorted it. Obviously it would be much better if we had the gross figures, but at least it's clear now. I also took the liberty of removing the claim about its 5 weeks at number 1, because BOM only shows five weeks and I suspect it spent much longer in pole position (in its 6th week it was actually up from its 3rd and 4th week takes) so we are probably doing it a disservice by saying it spent 5 weeks at number 1; that would be good by today's standards, but back then a film was only starting to get going by its third or fourth week. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, Betty. And I fully concur with your removing the claim about the 5 weeks at number 1. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay; I'm semi-retired you know. :-) Some comments (Steve ^T • C):

• Despite (or perhaps because of) its status as the prototypical summer blockbuster, Jaws is a film that has been analysed, scrutinised and pored over by film historians and scholars in ways that must make some of the most high-brow art films envious. It's a little surprising, then, to see a relatively slight themes and analysis section, one that seems to be a somewhat random dip into the waters instead of a comprehensive immersion, when compared to some of our other film FAs. Can either of the nominators confirm that this list of potential sources has been properly mined for useful commentary? From the snippets I've read, there do appear to be several promising depths left unexplored.
• Similarly, the list contains several entries from production-related publications that have seldom left me wanting (though I understand on this point that perhaps the various books you've used have covered what there is to know).
• From the title alone, "'Jaws' played to 80 million on ABC" from The New York Times seems like it might give up something useful about that first TV broadcast beyond the headline.
  • Added two TV tidbits on Legacy.
    • Struck. Steve ^T • C
• The film's international release strategy and box office performance are limited to one statement each; there are several sources, most notably Variety, that will be able to provide a more comprehensive breakdown, especially of the film's excellent, record-breaking performances outside North America. Such detail is not uncommon in film FAs, and it is possible to craft this in ways that it doesn't seem like an uninteresting info-dump. Regardless, to be truly encyclopaedic, the article may have to find room for it.

• This has been fleshed out, largely thanks to Betty. DocKino (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't more to be had from those Variety articles (as I say, it looks like we're mostly citing the headlines here), but given the expansion I'm OK striking this point as a major concern. Steve ^T • C

• Returning to the point I made during the first FAC, it still seems odd to say that "the film received mostly positive reviews upon release" when McBride (pp. 255–256) states outright that was not the case. I understand that the AFI link you've chosen to use presents a different view, and I don't deny the site's reliability, but where two seemingly-reliable sources conflict, I'm not sure we should just eliminate or ignore one of them—the implication being that you deem McBride unreliable, yet not for the 22 other occasions you've used him. Note, I'm not taking about the mix of reviews you've chosen to illustrate the section (which seems to be what you thought I was saying during the first FAC), but the statement of the film's critical regard. It may help to bolster the claim if you can find sources from closer to the film's release rather than relying on retrospective commentary.

• As I mentioned above, positive ones (note that all of those quotes are from reviews of the period!) are more frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igordebraga (talk • contribs)

• That's fine for what it is—another source that says the film received positive reviews, but a few minutes on Google finds plenty of others that go with the "mixed" line or generally favourable. And the collection of glowing quotes doesn't mean anything on its own, as it's possible to cherry-pick positive or negative reviews of any film to present a desirable narrative. Enough quotes could probably be gathered for even the most reviled of films to present it in a positive light. I'm not saying that's what the author of the linked article has done, but the approach does leave us little better off. Steve ^T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no question that McBride is a high-quality source, but "mostly positive" (AFI) and "widely divergent" (McBride) are not necessarily contradictory. AFI's language appears to describe an overall up/down tally, while McBride focuses on the breadth of opinion--and the latter, I believe, is captured by our current selection.
• Also, at your suggestion, I looked for a source that characterizes the critical response from closer to the film's release. What I found was this: "Critical response to Jaws was as overwhelmingly enthusiastic as its public reception" (Current Biography Yearbook 1978, p. 402). That clearly bolsters AFI's overall appraisal. Beyond that, in doing a straightforward Google Books search on "Jaws Spielberg reviews", I came up with "great reviews" (Parish, Steven Spielberg, Filmmaker, p. 47) and "the reviews were strong" (Morton, Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Making of Steven Spielberg's Classic Film, p. 86). No overall appraisal of "mixed" that I could see. DocKino (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for delving deeper; I only pushed this point because I've seen so many times before how retrospective analysis of now-revered films can get the original reception wrong. The additions and your explanation are enough for me. Struck. Steve ^T • C

• Do you think it's worth considering a move for the "Inspiration and themes section"? Its current placement doesn't flow particularly well with the structure of the rest of the article, and feels as if it was chosen at random. Would you be opposed to moving the section to appear just after the plot? There, it may benefit from the context provided by being closer to the events in the film it is dissecting. This method has worked well in other film FAs (e.g. Fight Club, American Beauty).
  • Struck. Steve ^T • C
• Although the plot section clocks in at only a little over the recommended 400–700 word count, it does feel a tad overlong, and I did zone out a couple of times when trying to read through it. The plot section is intended to complement the wider coverage that follows about the production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. However, you should be wary of including too much fine detail, unless directly referenced later in the article; the broad strokes will usually suffice. The plot section is the first that your readers will encounter, and will turn them off the rest of the article if it's difficult to get through.

• I've cut out some relatively extraneous details, paring it down by 70 words. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Struck. Steve ^T • C

• In looking for some decent commentary from the period on the critical consensus, I happened across this article, which presents a slightly different version of the story told towards the end of the filming section, a story that although essentially the same, seems to have had its edges rounded with time.
  • It confirms that it was done due to test audience response, and he shot one scene at a pool. The other is there, though told in a confusing way (it even sounds like it was shot in the pool too!).
• The BAFTA and LA United Film Fest links appear to be dead.
  • Betty fixed them.
    • Struck. Steve ^T • C

That's all for now. I look forward to reading your responses/rebuttals. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with the suggestion to tighten the plot and to relocate "Themes and Inspirations" to follow on from the plot section. Obviously the themes follow on naturally from the narrative, so the plot provides a context for any analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved, even though I disagree (unlike the two examples above, Jaws has a straightforward plot without much symbolism). Expanded a bit on foreign performance, too. igordebraga ≠ 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree, don't do it and don't worry about it. No-one is going to oppose over section placement. It was just a suggestion. Steve ^T • C 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the additions regarding the international performance, specifically those cited to Variety, the impression I get is that you haven't been able to access these; each statement that has been added could have come from the article headline. Are you sure that's all there is? Steve ^T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for how extensively Igor has researched this, but Variety didn't track international box office in the 70s; it may have reported on it from time to time when films broke records, but it wasn't like today where you get weekly updates. I would imagine the best sources would be local trade magazines and newspapers, but those are most likely to be in a foreign language. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable, but in this case these articles plainly exist, and it may be telling that the only ones that have been used are those that can be cited to the headline. Steve ^T • C 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Books didn't have much into foreign results (though I knew a country where the film is still a record holder because I live in it :). And I returned Inspirations to where it was - still think how hard it was to make the film is more important, and two recent film FAs put Production before Themes, after all. igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• tentative support Comments reading through now. Will copyedit as I go (please revert any accidental changes to meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No deal-breakers prose-wise are jumping out at me, and it is pretty comprehensive, so I am leaning support on those two criteria. I'll take another look tomorrow. can't see any prose or comprehensiveness issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... "I think it meets FAC criteria". I've said this so many times! lol. I'm not a religious person but I pray to God that it passes this time. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All my previous concerns about prose and sourcing have been addressed. Good job. Orane (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I request clarification on a couple awkward expressions in the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section. It states, "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and BSDM fetishes, including the various sexual fantasies and turn-ons of its protagonist... Rihanna stated that although she acts in a non-conservative manner and implies that she is "bad", this is not the case in the bedroom, confirming that she is "good" at performing sex.[9] After singing these lines, Rihanna confesses her love for chains and whips, chanting."

It goes from talking about a protagonist to taking about Rihanna herself. If you're still discussing the lyrics, you need to be consistent in differentiating between the protagonist/narrator and the actual artist. I'm thinking that it's the protagonist who says that she is good at sex, and not Rihanna herself (at least in the context of the lyrical interpretation). Am I being clear? Orane (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have changed to protagonist. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images

• The Britney Spears image caption should not have end punctuation as it's not a sentence.

  Removed Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 90 needs to be consistent with other magazine references.

  Fixed Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Also, languages do not have to be linked and avoid repeating publishers (e.g. "IRMA. IRMA", there may be more).

  What do you mean by linked languages? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  FN 130 - "Greek" is linked. Does not have to be. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• PDF refs should specify "format=" as a PDF, FN 124 has a typo.

  Added format=. And where is the typo?

  Sorry, it was 132 and 133. After the date, there's a pipe. Missed format for 134. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• MTV.de can be MTV Germany, just saying.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Do Billboard refs have the publisher parenthesized or not? Be consistent.

  Yes they do. They are all the same now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 5 needs single quotation marks for "Bad Ass" because they are inside the reference title, which is surrounded by double quotes.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 10 publisher needs to be linked.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Publisher for FN 42 can be the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 86 is RadarOnline, one word.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Works and publishers for FN 139 do not have to be linked.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Everything else looks good. However, the last few references were where I found a lot of issues, so double check that area. I may update with more concerns. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• The 'work' for Ref 16 should be BBC Online, BBC therefore becomes the 'publisher'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 1a, prose. I'm finding it hard to read through the first paragraph of the lead, which isn't all too positive of an indication of what is yet to come in the article. Several examples:

• "with production helmed by" is a rather ungainly construction. What's wrong with "produced by"?
• "It was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth United States single, and on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single." The way the regional adjectives are used here makes the sentence needlessly difficult to digest.
• "Inspired by channelling Rihanna," What does this even mean?

  She was channelling Rihanna when writing the song. She was inspired by Rihanna. I don't know how else to put it simply. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• What does channelling mean in this context? I'm unfamiliar with it being used this way. Auree ★ 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the lyrics based on the hook which she conceived." Clause should be restrictive here

   ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  He means that you should change "which" to "that". Orane (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I killed two birds with one stone by merging the sentence it occurs in with the preceding one--gets rid of some redundancy and the clause, so struck. Auree ★ 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism and bondage and fetishes." Is not bondage a fetish? Also, no need to wikilink common terms like "sex".

  Unlinked sex. Bondage is not a fetish; bondage is a type of restraint and sexual activity. A sexual fetish is when one is aroused by body parts or a specific object. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Alright, although it should read "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes" in that case. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The article is written in American English; "whilst" is not American spelling.

  Changed to "while". Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics, who criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, whilst others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." The usage of "who" here implies that all of the critics (the ones that gave mixed reviews) criticized the lyrics (negatively), and it doesn't flow well with the contradiction in the third clause. Suggest rewording to ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics; some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." or something along those lines.

  Re-worded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Thanks for your changes. Two more things:

• Although I personally don't see much need to wikilink the term, "fetishes" should be linked upon first occurrence in the lead.
• "The video initiated a lawsuit" I'm not sure videos initiate lawsuits; people or organizations do. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm finding lots of issues in the lead alone, so I feel inclined to oppose at this time. Auree ★ 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this comes down to your own personal preference of what you like and dislike. The lead follows the same style that recently pointed FAs have. Plus, it has been copyedited by people with FA experience. I can't keep on changing the lead to please just one person. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Calvin, this nomination would have a better chance of promotion if you engaged with reviewers, rather than dismissing them. Correct grammar is not a question of personal preference. For example, Hylian Auree is correct about the need for a restrictive clause – all you have to do is to agree on changing "which" to "that". And, "whilst" is archaic even in British English. FAC is not a vote and one unaddressed oppose can be enough to prevent promotion. Also, note that the reviewer has successful FA experience too! Graham Colm (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not basing this on personal whim (aside from the first two concerns, perhaps, which I have struck now); I'm basing this on FA criterion 1a: "It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." My concerns are heightened by the fact that the lead should represent the article at its best; I am, as everyone else here, a voluntary reviewer with an opinion of my own, and as it stands I find parts of the lead to be rather ponderous. Again, this is just my opinion, and other reviewers may agree or disagree. Auree ★ 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I mean, people read things differently. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Calvin, I think you should just implement Auree's changes. To tell the truth, my support is based on a previous version of this article. At the last FA, the introduction was not like this ("on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single" etc). So, just go ahead with the changes, and invite the reviewer to read the full article, which, in my opinion, is markedly better than the prose in the intro. Orane (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, Orane, I have no problem with reading through the rest. It just struck me as unusual to find so many prose errors in the lead. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've done the last thing now. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read till the Remixes and release section, and I must say that Orane was right in what he said. The sections only need a light copy-edit as far as I can tell, which I will make soon. One thing that struck me as odd is the repetition of the years in dates throughout the Remixes and release section. I would only keep the first ones in each paragraph (January 17, 2011, and January 23, 2011). Auree ★ 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the repetition of "2011" in every date is necessary, as there's no other year mentioned in the section (e.g. "April 11, 2011" could just be "April 11"). Auree ★ 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, Auree. Also, I just trimmed and rearranged the first paragraph of the intro just a little bit. Will do another light copy-edit of the entire article soon. Thanks also for your part in copyediting it. Orane (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say that your changes make a world of difference. The first paragraph of the lead is now engaging and introductory, which is how it is supposed to be. I will strike my oppose but will refrain from supporting for now. I'll try to read the rest of the article by tomorrow. Auree ★ 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: "S&M" became Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart, and Spears' fifth. -> "Spears'" should be "Spears's". Till I Go Home (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  There isn't an accepted rule that governs the possessive of singular nouns that end in s. It depends on how the word is pronounced; do we want to hear "Spears" or "Spearseez"? I prefer the former based on euphony. Graham Colm (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, just checked other FAs and a second 's' is not imposed. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, and see here about euphony [15]. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jivesh

Prose that seem awkward

• • An uptempo dance-pop and eurodance song that samples the synthesizer line from Depeche Mode's 1984 hit "Master and Servant", the song's instrumentation comprises synthesizers, bass beats, a keyboard and guitars.
  • American singer and songwriter Ester Dean received additional writing credits.

• Not done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)", which was produced by Stargate. - I think you can let the reader know that both songs were produced by Stargate? Did the critics mention this while comparing both songs? If no remove , which was produced by Stargate
  • Rihanna's vocal range spans one octave from B3 to B4 on the song - You can let readers know that those two are musical notes.
  • Dean, who served as co-writer, also provided backing vocals. - What makes that a necessary mention for the second time?
  • was criticized by Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine as a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." - What is this piece of criticism doing in composition?
  • the singer ... the song's protagonist - make a choice, I think it is necessary. Anyway, I don't think Rihanna ios playing a protagonist here because she overtly talked about her (dirty) fantasies to a magazine.
  • An official remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on January 17, 2011. - Did Rihanna confirm it was official? Or her label? Released? Where? I don't think it was available for paid download.
  • contemporary hit radio and rhythmic radio station - Will you use station for all or not use it at all?
  • Extended play - should be small "e"

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Jake Conway of Q wrote that its lyrics showed that "Rihanna proves why she remains one of the most provocative artists in pop music," and "turns the tables on abusive ex-lover Chris Brown."
  • Nick Levine of Digital Spy gave the song four out of five stars - Care to mention it is in fact a rating
  • Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine gave a mixed review, noting that it is a "catchy" song, but does not make an impression or provide memorability, writing that the hook "Na, na, na, c'mon" is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." Sullivan continued to write that the lyrics were purposely written to shock and offend, but noted "In all honesty, these days I'd be more shocked if her next single WASN'T [sic] about her sexual desires." - Allow me to say that this is very verbose prose and it is very bad when read aloud.
  • Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "Dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities". - I think it should be a small "[d]..."
  • James Skinner of BBC Music wrote that "S&M" lacked the appeal Rated R's "chart-friendly moments" had. Skinner criticized the use of overtly suggestive lyrics that he said were not synonymous with the flirtatious appeal that Rihanna was trying to create. With regard to Rihanna's vocals, Skinner described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" or convincing sound. - Here you said too much in per unit line and you are again using a very verbose prose.
  • USA Today's Steve Jones noted that Rihanna "never retreats from that sexually aggressive tone as she shakes off the dark cloud of domestic violence that veiled 2009's Rated R", and added that "Loud's pulsating opener, S&M, makes it clear from the jump where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'."[13] - Won't this fit better next to Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine, and Thomas Conner of the Chicago Sun Times...
    • Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My general comment on critical reception is that the prose is overly verbose at times and it could have been organized better. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • denoting sales of over 15,000 copies - certifications are based on shipments
    • You know now that different countries are based on sales or shipments. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
  • The song has since been certified gold in Belgium, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies,[54] Denmark,[55] and Sweden,[56] and platinum in Switzerland, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies.[57 - The shipments for the others are the same?
  • was officially released as a single - remove officially
  • The song was number one on March 13, 2011, for five non-consecutive weeks - What does this sentence even mean? :S
  • denoting shipments of over 280,000 copies of the single - shipment should be used (singular) + of the single is repetitive next to copies. No need to say that.
  • In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, "S&M" sold 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100 - This sentence is very confusing. Make it clear that downloads came both form the album version and the remix.
  • "S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one song on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, and made Rihanna the artist with the most number one songs in the chart's nineteen-year history
  • denoting shipments of over two million copies - I hope you know what has to be corrected
  • "S&M" ranked at number 15 on Billboard magazine's best-selling top 50 Pop Songs[67] and number two on the top 50 best-selling Dance/Clubs Songs of 2011. - WP:OR... in the US, year-end charts are not sole based on sales. So, you should not write "best-selling"
    • Not OR. There is a source there.

• It is still OR. I just told you those two charts (in fact any year-end chart in the US) are not based on sales only. So don't write best-selling. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressed all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The music video for "S&M" was filmed in Los Angeles during the weekend of January 15, 2011.[70][71] It was directed by Melina Matsoukas, the director of the music videos for "Hard", "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101". - Can easily be one sentence if you remove all the unnecessary details.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

**according to gossip-blogger Perez Hilton who was in the video. - Did I really see Perez Hilton? If yes, everything coming from it has got to go.

• • • What do you mean? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Perez Hilton is not even allowed in GAs. I know the source is MTV News but it remains the blogger's analysis. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I removed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Rihanna's love of pop art influenced the video - Not sure about this phrasing, especially be FA standards.
  • The music video was premiered on VEVO on February 1, 2011. - Remove was
  • I see over-linking of Perez Hilton.
    • Address all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

General comment: The synopsis is pretty interesting. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The Huffington Post wrote - A magazine does not write, a journalist/critic writes
  • OK! magazine - Why OK! magazine when you never said Billboard magazine? Be consistent
  • Same for New York magazine
  • I see over-linking of Billboard
    • It's only linked once in the entire body. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
    • Only linked once in this section.

• It's linked twice; in Background and conception, then in Reception and ban. It's obvious I won't write something that is not true. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unlinked. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • When I go out to make something, I kind of go out with the intention to get it banned – [well] not to get it banned, I always want my stuff played – but to make something provocative ... so when you do something that's provocative, that's usually a repercussion. It's gonna be talked about or banned or slandered in some way. But it's making an effect and people are having a dialogue about it, so, to me, that's successful - So this is supposed to be a block-quote? However, my eyes don't see it as a block-quote. Either you move those pictures (which, in my opinion, are unneeded) or you paraphrase the quote as the reception is already made of quotes and quotes.
  • at the 2011 BRIT Awards on February 15, 2011

•  ?

• 2011 and 2011 again? It's very bad. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removed one of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote its release as a single' - since when do we promote the release of a song? Did you mean simply "Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote it"?
    • No, I mean single. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Then please make the correction I asked for. If you did not understand, read what I wrote one more time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Spears' outfit was black, and she wore a mask and rabbit ears, and both singers wore chained handcuffs.
    •  ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• and ... and ...and - It's too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Rihanna opened the performance seated and provocatively opened her legs, and simulated whipping sounds were used throughout the song.
    •  ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• and ... and ...and - It's too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Rihanna performed "S&M" on May 27, 2011, on NBC's Today show's "Summer Concert Series", along with "Only Girl (In the World)", "What's My Name?" and "California King Bed", where she gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears.
    •  ?. Too long? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Is "California King Bed" a location? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rwworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • I see over-linking to BDSM
    • How? It's only linked once in the entire article. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It has been linked twice. In Composition and live performances. And again, i won't write something false. I did not say where simply because you have written the article and you should be knowing where. Added to this, this is an FA review. Comments should be brief. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I just couldn't see it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • She then transitioned into "S&M" - This reads awkwardly as well.
    • How? That's what she did. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• How can Rihanna transition into a song? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some final comments (Prose that still looks sloppy);

• Although Rihanna had planned to perform "S&M" in its entirety to promote its release as a single, she only sang the chorus and one verse, inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?".
• I see some repetitive use of Rihanna
• She changed the performance - Is this the best way of saying this? Change would be like she did not even perform "S&M"

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done all three. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to Support All my concerns with regard to the prose have been addressed. I will do a quick check of the references and support. Well done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and references. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Comments from Tbhotch.^™ 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"for 4:03 (4 minutes, three seconds)." -> Why not 4:03 minutes or four minutes, three seconds, or something like that.

• Changed to (4 minutes, 3 seconds) Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"'Shut me up, gag and bound me/'Cause the pain is my pleasure/Nothing comes better'" -> consistency with the slashes (see section above, second para)

• Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I read "via iTunes" four times in the same paragraph

• Removed 3 of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"A blond woman in a red jacket with black fur on her shoulder. She is singing into a microphone" -> Am I missing something? Also, it is the only image with ALT text.

• All images have an alt now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'" -> I think that 'chains and whips excite [her]' has more sense in the sentence

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"In the UK," -> In the United Kingdom; as it is the first time it is mentioned

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"R&B / hip hop single" -> Shouldn't be R&B/Hip hop (if it is the name of a chart) if not MOS:SLASH applies

• The Official Charts Company actually list R&B/Hip hop songs as Urban, so have written Urban. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"and top-ten in the Netherlands,[51][52] peaking at numbers six and seven, respectively." -> What does that mean?

• It charted on two separate Dutch charts. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

""S&M" charted at number eight in the Czech Republic.[53]" -> Why don't you merge it?

• The sentence would be too long then.

"and walks Hilton" -> Perez Hilton? Paris Hilton?

• Sorry, Perez was previously mentioned in the first para but it was removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

All "Apple"s should be "Apple Inc" (without the dot, it will appear)

• Only Time Inc. should have the Inc. included. All others should not. Pretty sure it is mentioned above. If not, then it's in the last FAC. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Ref 64.- Consistency needed

• I have written |work=Billboard|Prometheus Global Media| Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Ref 105.- Accessdate missed

• Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Ref 132.- Accessdate missed

• Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The main concern I have is the correct use of English. Since Rihanna is Barbadian, and Barbados is part of the Commonwealth, shouldn't this article be written in Barbadian English? Words like "conceptualized", "color", "criticized", etc. shouldn't be written in British English? The same concern with the dates. Tbhotch.^™ 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Considering that the word "Barbadian" only appears once in the entire article, that she resides in the US, that the song was produced in the US and that both the article and the single are highly US-centralized, I think American English is most applicable here. I think the lyrics of her songs are also written in AmE in her album booklets, though I'm not too sure about this last point. Auree ^★★ 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll ask to the respective MOS, considering that she is not Barbadian-American the article should have British English, in my view. Tbhotch.^™ 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Per WT:MOS the American English should be WP:RETAINED, unless there is a consesus at S&M talkpage or WP:RIHANNA to use British English. Tbhotch.^™ 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning to support. Considering that this article has been reviewed multiple times, if there are no problems with references, images or spot-checks, it'll have my support. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked at images and sources above. Spotchecks haven't been done though. (hint to anyone interested in doing so) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to Oppose

• Three block quotes for an article of this size is a bit excessive. The Britney Spears one I see as the most unnecessary and it adds little to nothing to the article.

  There are two block quotes now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  ... and the one that was removed is now a normal (but rather long) quotation. Paraphrase it, trim it or don't use the quotation at all. Second, I personally do not see the value in the Britney Spears block quote. "She really liked the song to begin with, but it was a different story when she had to sing it, and she really wanted to be a part of it." is the only part of the quote that adds something to the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Critical reception is excessively using quotations. I understand this is a place where there will be more quotations from the rest of the article, but this is too much.

  Doing Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Better, but first paragraph is still do dense in quotations. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's fine now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Likewise the Reception and ban section, but to a lesser extent.

  Doing Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Could use a bit more work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's fine now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)"" - what aspects of these songs exactly are similar? This sentence is open to interpretation.

  That's it. He just compared it their production. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I just happened to notice that the source does not compare the two singles, but only says that Stargate put their signature sound on both songs. The source also says something about the "steady-rocking dance track, with ominous, snarling keyboard sounds." You could integrate that into the section too. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing was done to address this concern. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  You said it was a suggestion. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  An idea to get you started. "X compared the song to Y" is not enough. It's vague and leaves readers hanging. The statement isn't even supported by the source. Did you read my "suggestion"? Please fix this, thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done. ANd it is supported, it's clearly there. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  There's a difference between a direct comparison between two singles and saying that a producer produced both songs. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't see what was wrong with it, because it was the lead single, but I changed it anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  The fact that it was a lead single does not matter. It still was not a comparison. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Stargate, who have also put their signature sound on previous singles from Rihanna's Loud album, like "Only Girl (In The World)," He is all but explicitly comparing it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  No the writer is not. He's only saying Stargate produced "Only Girl (In the World)" as well. That is not a direct comparison. They've put their signature sound in about fifty other songs. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write."" - that's somewhat unprofessional writing

  I disagree. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  It's a journalistic tone: not encyclopaedic. Try something like "shows the writer's lack of good ideas", or remove the word "good", or something. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities"" - should be in composition?

  Moved. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The information about radio censorship should be moved to the Release section, not in Critical reception, which is for reviews from critics.

  Moved. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Per WP:ORDINAL, chart positions should be consistently written as numerals or words.

  All chart positions are numbers now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Chart performance repetitively says "S&M" over and over. Replace these instances with it, or the single, or etc.

  Changed a lot of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The resolution of the lawsuit was announced on October 19, 2011, as Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money." - can be tightened to "On October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money."

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Synopsis section of Music video could use more "she"s than "Rihanna"s.

  Changed a lot of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?"" - awkward "inserted".

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "She gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears" - interview to whom? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  It doesn't say. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  The comma placement here is awkward.
  Overall, there is still more work to be done. Some concerns need revisiting. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Removed the comma. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It looks as though a few concerns have gone unnoticed? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose based on criterion 1a. From the lead alone:

• "...the song was released on January 21..." – Was the song released (i.e. published) or was this recording of the song released?

  Released in the sense that people can buy it, as usual. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  People can buy the legal rights to the song?? Or did you mean the sheet music? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  When people can buy the song, yes, a CD or a digital download. Why are you making things so difficult and unnecessarily complicated?? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...instrumentation comprises of..." – explanation here

  Changed to consists. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...which are about sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes..." – wouldn't BDSM cover all of that?

  No. If you would have read the comments above, you would see that BDSM is the consensual use of restraints and other prohibitive devices, which is none of those. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Really? You might want to read the BDSM article... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  I did. Sexual intercourse is not a restraint, sadomasochism is not a restraint, and a fetish is not a restraint. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...were conceptualized by Dean, who attempted to reflect Rihanna's sexually confident persona."

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Regarding the previous sentence, I don't see support for that idea later in the article.

  Writing and theme section. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  No, there's nothing in that section to support the idea. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  There is now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  You've repeated the phrase in the body, but the citation you paired with it doesn't support the idea at all. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "'S&M' received divided opinions..." – Something's weird about a song's receiving an opinion. Songs can receive reviews or praise or scorn, but I'm not sure about opinions. Maybe because opinions remain with you but reviews/praise/scorn transfer...?

  A review, praise or scorn is still an opinion. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." – The second part does not necessarily contrast the first. It's not even meaningful on its own, as Loud could be the worst album of all time for all I know.

  Okay? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The song was number one on the singles charts in Australia, Canada, and Poland, attaining top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland and Spain." – This construction suggests that reaching number one in A/C/P is how a song attains a top-five position in G/F/I/S. Or maybe the other way around...

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The previous example contains one list that uses a serial comma and one that does not. Check for consistency throughout.

  What is a serial comma? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

See Serial comma, usage should be consistent. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Usage remains inconsistent. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "...at the 2011 BRIT Awards, and sang..." – What does that comma accomplish?

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...but photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit and alleged that it incorporates ideas..." – Based on the construction, "it" refers either to "the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality". I suspect you actually mean the video generally, so state that.

  Well it's obvious considering the previous sentence talks about the video, and the first part of the sentence talks about critics opinions. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Indeed it's obvious, but you're here because you believe the prose is excellent and not merely sufficient to get the point across, right? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  So you agree it's obvious? What's your point then? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Criterion 1a. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One more from later in the article, just for fun (spot the errors):

• "The photographer continued to explain why he felt a lawsuit was appropriate and likened it to singers sampling other artists' lyrics and melodies for use in their own work..."

   ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

How can a lawsuit be likened to sampling? Graham Colm (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This argument is very easy to comprehend. He is arguing that why should a singer be able to copy things for their music videos when they have to get permission to use another singer's song. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

It might be easy to understand, but it's poor prose. You have to replace it in the sentence (a pronoun, which refers to lawsuit) with whatever it actually refers to. Graham Colm (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a grammatical mistake in the sentence, too. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I would also point out that only minor changes were made between the last failed nomination and this one.

Your point is redundant. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Redundancy, exactly. Why should reviewers bother with a nomination that's already failed when minimal changes have occurred in the interim? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it can't be that bad, I have 3 supports, so. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 05:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a new error has now been introduced in the lead: "The song's lyrics, which are about sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes." Auree ^★★ 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Corrected. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I removed a bunch of redundant commas from the article and have also made the non-usage of the serial comma consistent; however, I came across this, which is exceedingly cumbersome: "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, the album version of "S&M" and its official remix sold a combined total of 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the chart." as well as this "The end of the video flashes between scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna suggestively eating bananas, strawberries and cream, and bejeweled ice cream." Please revise. Auree ^★★ 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done both. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Overall, I was disappointed in this song, I didn't like it as much as some of her other stuff. But as to the article itself:
• Writing and theme and Composition and lyrical interpretation look fine to me, no comments there.
• "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that would catch the attention of Janet Jackson." Maybe note why he mentions her specifically here? i.e. does she have a history with this kind of theme?
• "late night Cinemax naughtiness" I don't think you're supposed to link within quotations like that.
• I made some copyedits, hopefully they are inoffensive. I'm really impressed that you are trying for a sixth time with this, I'll try to go over the rest of the article when I have more energy. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hello. I have done your comments. I think the linking of cinemax in this circumstance is fine, because I don't think it's a commonly known thing. I wouldn't have known what it was otherwise. Thanks for your c/e's. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  You're welcome, one more thing, it looks like you might have left out a word here: "Jake Conway of Q wrote that the lyrics of displays why the singer continues to be one of the most provocative recording artists in the music industry". Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Lol, thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not really satisfied with the way you present whole Janet Jackson bit: you have "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that would catch the attention of Janet Jackson,[14] due to the singer's tendency to perform S&M style performances.[35]" Cinquenmani says: "After comparing last year's Rated R to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope, Eric Henderson ended his review of the album by expressing hopes that Rihanna wouldn't follow up with something like All for You. At first glance, it appears that his fears were justified: Like Janet's last hit album, Loud is a decided step away from its über-personal, melodrama-drenched predecessor... That's not to say there aren't traces of the R-rated Rihanna here. The album opens with an ode to S&M that would make various parts of Janet's body perk up."[16] I'd suggest something like "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that compares to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope".

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I don't have a problem with linking to Cinemax, but is there a way to do it outside the quote so it lines up with WP:MOSLINK?

  Not really. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I'm not sure you represent the Daily News piece accurately here: "Lindsay Goldwert of the Daily News suggested that Rihanna's comments on the types of sexual activity that she enjoys may be part of a healing process, after she was assaulted by her ex-boyfriend Chris Brown in February 2009.[17]" The article never explicitly mentions healing from abuse by Chris Brown, it quotes a couple therapists who say that submissive roles can be part of a healing process of childhood abuse or a way for powerful people to get relief from responsibility. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  I removed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Ok, I think that was probably a good idea, it wasn't really about the song per se. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion about flow: you start the Writing and theme with statements that a. Rihanna made indicating that she like S&M sexual activity in real life, b. then talk about a co-writer, c. then a statement by Rihanna that the lyrics are metaphorical--rather than about actual S&M sexual activity, d. then mention another co-writer. I'd move c. right after a., maybe add a "however" or something to note the contrast. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, but then the lyrics are being spoken about before we find out who wrote them? Surely it's best to keep it as who wrote them first and then what they are about. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Ok, I see what you're saying here, but is there a way to keep Rihanna's comments and the lists of co-writers together? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's fine as it is to be honest. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• A couple more prose comments:
• "various explicit acts with the singer with a feather boa and a top with the word "censored" across it are displayed." Maybe rephrase to avoid the "with... with" here.

  Was thinking of ways to rephrase but this one works the best. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The end of the video intercuts scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna..." Is there a good way to avoid saying "video" and "scenes" twice here?

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Rihanna responded to the news via Twitter, writing, "They watched 'Umbrella' ... I was full nude"." Could this be clarified a bit? A link to Umbrella (song) might be helpful too (though hopefully not within the quote". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Linked. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Comment: I don't think I'll have time to finish my review of this article, but at the request of Calvin/Aaron I'll post my thoughts. I'm not inclined to support at this point as some of my concerns about MOS/Prose are unresolved and one of the references I looked at didn't support the claim found in the article. I still think this nomination could succeed if thoroughly spot-checked and if an experienced prose reviewer were to review the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks found some issues:

• "she does not think of the song in a sexual way" vs "I don't think of it in a sexual way"

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Short verbatim phrases like "sexually aggressive tone" should be quoted

  Quoted. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Rihanna logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history" vs "Rihanna logs the shortest span between a solo artist's first and 10th No. 1s in the chart's 52-year history"

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Which now reads, "Rihanna set a recorded for the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the history of the Hot 100" - it's still too close to the source, and what does "set a recorded" mean? Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oops typo. Well, that was what happened. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  The wording is too close for inclusion in a FA, see here where it says "...cannot be closely paraphrased for copyright concerns, but must be substantially rewritten in original language". Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see how I am supposed to re-word this case. It wouldn't really sense any other way as there is only one way to say that she logged the shorted span. It's not even identical, it is different. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Try something like "With only four years, eleven months and two weeks between her first and tenth number one on the chart, Rhianna set a record for a solo artist." Graham Colm (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  I've used that. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can't find "The video's production was influenced by Rihanna's love of pop art" in the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

James Garrard

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently re-written after obtaining a hard-to-find biography of Garrard. (Merry Christmas to me!) Chronicles the life of Kentucky's second governor – from Revolutionary War soldier to excommunicated Baptist minister to shunned abolitionist to the only Kentucky governor to succeed himself in office for a span of 200 years, I hope you'll enjoy the article. Hope to respond to concerns quickly. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page number(s) for the Note?
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Dictionary bibliography entry should use the title of the article cited, not the work as a whole
  • Apparently, the "chapter" parameter doesn't work with {{cite web}}. I've got the article title showing now, but I had to lose "Gale History in Context", which is the name of the electronic database. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether or not locations are included for books
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Compare editor format for Blanchard and Everman 2004
  • It's not an editor format. I used "in" to distinguish between two sources by H.E. Everman. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's in footnotes - I'm looking at Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see what you mean now. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the Collins source is self-published, how does it satisfy WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Collins is recognized as a prolific early Kentucky historian. He has his own entry in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, and the entry specifically mentions Historical Sketches of Kentucky (the work cited in this article) as his most popular work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review: Five images in total, all five clearly in the public domain. I'll try to get a prose review done soon as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • I'd include a link for "common schools".
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • At one point you say his home was in Fayette County, then later in the same paragraph you say that his home was in the new Bourbon County, which was formed out of Kentucky County. It's a bit confusing. Did Bourbon arise from Fayette or Kentucky (or both)?
    • Technically, both. Kentucky County was first, created from Fincastle County, Virginia. Then Kentucky County was split into three counties, including Fayette. Part of Fayette was then carved out to form Bourbon. I've tried to clarify. See if it makes sense now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "Political career in Kentucky", I think "before" sounds better than "prior to". It means the same thing. It's a personal preference, though, and I won't withhold support if you stick with your wording -- just my two cents.
    • No, "before" works just fine. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll return with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been told in some of my FA nominations that "re-elected" is the British spelling and "reelected" is American. I don't totally agree, but someone else might bring it up, so it might be best to standardize them in non-hyphenated form.
    • Hmm. Didn't know that. I've changed to the "Americanized" version, although I like the British version better. Still don't get the "u" in "colour", though! :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "First term as governor", I think the last two words of this sentence are unnecessary: "Over the course of his tenure as governor, Garrard approved enabling acts for the creation of twenty-six new Kentucky counties; no other Kentucky governor oversaw the creation of as many new counties."
    • You're right. Deleted. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You use the word "opined" four times. It kind of sticks out.
    • Hehe. I like "opine". Changed three of them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "1799 gubernatorial election", there seems to be a word missing in this sentence: "Garrard Todd to fill the next vacancy on the Kentucky Court of Appeals after the election, which occurred in 1801." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite so. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hope I can address any additional issues and gain your support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All resolved, changed to support. Good luck!

Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:MHU. - Dank (push to talk)

• "2nd": see WP:ORDINAL. Also, avoid consecutive links when possible; you could just link "second governor of Kentucky" here, which will get your readers quickly to "Governor of Kentucky" if that's where they want to go.
  • Changed the ordinal, but the consecutive links follow a convention used in every Kentucky governor article, each of which is at least a good article. I'd like to keep that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "slavery protections": I think "guarantees of the continuance of slavery" would be easier to parse.
  • Works for me. I was trying to say something like this without resorting to forms of the term "abolition" because Garrard didn't necessarily advocate immediate abolition, only provisions for the eventual emancipation of the slaves. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Fredericksburg, Virginia": period needed.
  • Weird that I missed that. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "twelve children, five sons and seven daughters": five sons and seven daughters
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He later escaped and returned to his military service. ¶ In 1779, while still serving in the militia, Garrard was elected to represent Stafford County the Virginia House of Delegates. He interrupted his military service ...": repetition
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You say he was in the service, then you say he was still in the service, then you say he interrupted his service, then at the end of the paragraph he resumes his service again. I've tried to condense this; please make sure I didn't introduce any inaccuracies. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• "advocated for" (in three places): Garner's is silent. MWDEU and SOED recommend using "advocated" transitively. You might prefer "lobbied for". - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've used a mixture now. Good catch. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "he surveyed and entered at the state land office": "... and recorded" might be easier to parse, if that's accurate.
  • The jargon used in the source was "entered", but I'm pretty sure "recorded" is accurate, too. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "recently-created": see WP:HYPHEN and other punctuation guides. Search throughout for "ly-".
  • Fixed in a few places Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the latter being the location of Garrard's home.": conciseness, appositive. "Garrard's county of residence".
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • "The latter being" is wordy. I went with: "... and Garrard's county of residence, Bourbon." - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• "his friend, Augustine Easton, attended ...": restrictive appositive, so it's a little better without commas.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "five of these conventions, held in May and August 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792.": Possibly "... in May or August in 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792", but probably better would be to give just the years, or give the month and year for each.
  • This one is a little difficult. I don't have the months for all of them, but two were held in 1785, so the month is needed to differentiate between them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah I misunderstood, I thought it was in May or August in each of those years. Then: "... in May and August 1785 and in 1787, 1788, and 1792." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "article 9" (twice): Article 9, or the ninth article.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "it appeared as though": it appeared that
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "who was recently defeated": who had recently been defeated
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "chose and elector": chose an elector
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "thus he voted for Brown": comma splice. "so he voted for Brown" - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Among the pro-squatting legislation supported by Garrard were measures the forbade ...": Garrard supported pro-squatting legislation, including measures that forbade
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "A Democratic-Republican, Garrard agreed with Thomas Jefferson's dissension toward the Alien and Sedition Acts.": I'm not sure what this sentence is saying.
  • See if it is clearer now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In a November 7, 1798, address to the General Assembly": Garner's recommends rephrasing: "In an address to the General Assembly on November 7, 1798"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "on grounds": on the grounds
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Among the reforms were the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia; the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia; and provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf.": Per WP:MHU#series, it's better to put the element with commas last in the series if that makes the sentence easier to read, and it does, here, allowing you to remove the semicolon (an improvement because readers usually expect an independent clause after a semicolon): "Among the reforms were the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia, provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf, and the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia."
  • Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "required that a majority of voters had to approve": repetition (required, had to)
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "5,446 favored the call, 440 opposed it, but 3,928": 5,446 favored the call and 440 opposed it, but 3,928
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This cast doubt upon the true will of the people.": That's an opinion; whose?
  • Technically, I guess it is the opinion of the source's author. I have clarified that the doubt was in the minds of some legislators. I think that is supported by the idea that opponents reliably held that abstentions were votes against the convention and the fact that the legislature ultimately decided that there were not enough votes to call a convention in that election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "calling for another vote on the calling": one "calling" too many
  • Well, yes, that was a rather atrociously written sentence. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the electorate raised issues of their own.": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • Clarified, I hope. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "in the state's Bluegrass region, Jefferson County, and western Kentucky.": This can be misread that Jefferson County is the Bluegrass region. It's harder to misread this: "in the western counties, Jefferson County, and the state's Bluegrass region"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Unbeknownst": Many AmEng style guides prefer "Unknown".
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "further strained relations between him and the Senate": further strained his relations with the Senate
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He died January 19, 1822": He died on January 19, 1822
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We may have a few lingering issues to sort out on a couple of these, but I hope you will be able to support soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now Supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No major quibbles with any of your edits. Always good to have a review from you, Dank. Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Noisy Miner

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Mdk572 (talk · contribs)

Marj and I have buffed this little critter (found in everyone's backyard here in Oz ("noisy" is an understatement!) to give it a shot at the mainpage one day. Feel it is as good as many other bird FAs and there are two of us to address concerns pronto. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from PumpkinSky

1. Who's Marj? (curious, not in article history by that name)
2. Ref 3 has a date format that does not match the others. PumpkinSky talk 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• 1=Marj = user:Mdk572 Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 3 fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jim usual high standard, obligatory niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I made these edits, please check. In particular, I remove much double spacing from the text. Some of this was at the start of sentences, so may have been intentional, but was not consistent so I edited it out. If you prefer the older, AE type double spacing (no pov from me!), please make sure it's reapplied consistently.
• I pruned the "howevers", please check that the survivors are essential

• 1= looks ok to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two subspecies have long been recognised, with M. m. leachifound in eastern Tasmania, while the mainland population has been split into three in 1999. — "was split", I think, but clunky anyway. What about something like Four subspecies are currently recognised. The separation of the Tasmanian M. m. leachi is of long standing, and the mainland birds were further split in 1999?

• yep, I'll take that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that the change from Merops was because it was realised that it wasn't a bee-eater?

• If I can find a source which says that, I'll add, but I don't recall seeing any thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• One of their most obvious characteristics — perhaps add of the genus?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• A 1999 study suggested that two additional subspecies be recognised — are these now generally accepted?

• Schodde's 1999 book was one of the big landmark works, and the four are recognised in the official government list but some study is still needed to fine-tune. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Far North Queensland — is the capitalised "Far" correct?

• Yup, see Far North Queensland. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Ocyphaps lophotes) — why binomial for this but not other birds?

• binomials of bird spp. (but not genera) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, CoI as member of bird project, one more comment I notice that grevillea is lc in the text and capitalised in the image caption, they can't both be right. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've lowercased the cases where "grevillea" is used as the common name for the genus, rather than when it is italicised and used in a scientific name. Can be tricky.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images All appropriately licensed, I wonder if it's possible with the second image to clarify that User:Noodle snacks is J J Harrison. I know one redirects to the other, but it could be made explicit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Officer 1964 (unless that should be 1965?)

added some info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

64 typo fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• No citations to Beruldsen 1980

Reinstated. He is quoted by Higgins but is the recognised nest/eggs expert. Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 1: why the bolding?

Looks like double italics - title and scientific name. Fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles

Changed to consistent single within double Marj (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is ANU E?

Hosted by the Australian National University, ANU E Press publishes electronic scholarly works Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

Looks like I don't and Cas does. Think I have them removed them all.Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't mix {{citation}} with the {{cite}} family
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals

The cite doi template does not give publishers. Do you want to change the others to match Cas?Marj (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All journal publishers removed Marj (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• When listing Australian locations, be consistent in whether they include state name, just "Australia", or none of the above (more common names could include nothing, but consistently - compare Canberra and Sydney, which have about the same recognition), and if states whether these are abbreviated

• I'm going with states and unabbreviated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not

• all to two digits now (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is CSIRO, and why does Emu have two different publishers?

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - a government publisher of scientific and technical books and journals, including Emu, the mouthpiece of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists´ Union. It was previously published independently by the RAOU. Given CSIRO consistently and wikilinked first mention. Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice? In RL I'm used to giving the publisher when it is published by/for a noteworthy organisation only. So 'Nordic Society Oikos' but not 'Wiley-Blackwell' Is there a wikipedia or bird project guideline on this? Marj (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• How I've always worked is that I've never put a publisher for journals but always for books and web links where possible. Makes things alot simpler :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced

• should be all spaced now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated

• all aligned now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

• got dble pds Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 58: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk)

Hey, Cas, your green responses are created with some sort of template, I guess? Templates get more than double-counted (for some reason Gimmetrow can explain) in transcluded pages, and cause errors in the FAC archives per Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok -I'll de-templated them in a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• In the lead, you talk about Tasmanian and mainland birds before you give the essential context that it's an Australian bird.

• rejigged order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The lead mentions twice that the increase in this species's population has led other species to decrease.

• removed one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The nomenclatural discussion seems incorrect to me according to Article 23.9 of the Code. If M. garrula was actually suppressed by the Commission, it is not technically a nomen oblitum. I haven't seen the text of the opinion, though.

• I couldn't get the fulltext of the decision, but the oblitum designation is mentioned at the next ref. If you can get fulltext of FN7 I'd be grateful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed this now. Ucucha (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The lead and the body differ on their assessment of the validity of the two additional subspecies. Also, calling a subspecies a "race" is confusing.

• Ah yes, Higgins the HANZAB bible is cautious about fully accepting, but Schodde is another broad publication-review, and the official Australian Gov't directory accepts the four, so have updated accordingly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The description section says that the proposed subspecies lepidota is only in western NSW, but the map shows a large range in Qld.

• rejigged. correct and updated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "These churring calls vary between individuals,21 and coupled with laboratory tests showing Noisy Miners can distinguish calls by different birds, suggest this may be integral to the complex social structure of the species"—this sentence is a little too complex.

Ucucha (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• split last sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No further issues; haven't yet had a chance to look for sources that may have been missed. Ucucha (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments. Not done reviewing yet, but it looks pretty good. All I've got so far is suggestions for links. Will finish the rest later tonight. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• lead: link subspecies, colonies, display, manna, courtship display, culling, protected species; link Tasmanian earlier

• all done bar the tricky ones...manna should be plant sap but isn't discussed in plant sap as of yet, and protected species redirects to endangered species which is wrong, especially with this one. Need to think about this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Taxonomy: link John Gould, aboriginal people, conserved name, molecular analysis

• linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "John Gould elected to use the name Merops garrulus as the original description" how could he use a name as a description? (I know what is meant, but it could be worded better)

• I've changed it to "treated", but was thinking of "assumed", "took" or "followed" as other verbs which can convey the meaning better.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Description: link plumage, nape, crown, mottled, alarm call, conspecifics

• linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dist & Hab: link Adelaide, sedentary, edge habitat

• linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• don't think hypothesized needs linking

• agree - delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Behaviour: link canopy, bonding, agonistic, infanticide, grebes, herons, cormorants

• linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• link exotics (I'm assuming this means introduced species?); spatial memory; buff; die-back; cooperative breeding; habitat restoration; revegetation; habitat corridor
• eucalypt is variably capitalized
• "Banksia ericifolia, integrifolia and serrata, Grevillea aspleniifolia, banksii, hookeriana, juniperina and rosmarinifolia" I haven't seen this method of listing only epithets when referring to species, are you sure we can do that?

• nope, did break it up a bit better but might veer away from official usage a tad far, so rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "When searching for invertebrates, however, it appears to employ a different strategy based on learned rules." any chance of explaining/expanding this a little bit? Are the dual cognitive strategies employed by the noisy miner for foraging a behavioural mechanism unique to this species?

Expanded. It was the first study to find so, I haven't located similar studies of other species. Marj (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• the lead says the clutch size is 3-4 eggs, the body says 2-4

• aligned now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Hatching is asynchronous, with up to six days being recorded between the hatching of the first and last chicks in a clutch." you might want to reword to avoid the noun+ing construction (there's another earlier starting "the other three being the Black-eared Miner...")
• That one-sentence final paragraph could surely be integrated into one of the previous paragraphs?

• relocated hanging sentence, though not a great destination either, still as the opneing comment it isn't bad Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Expanded sentence so that it seems to belong in the first paragraph. Marj (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lit review: I think in general the overall coverage of the article is good, and comparable to other avian FAs. I did, however, find a few sources not yet used in the article (including some very recent) and have listed them on the article talk page—not with the expectation that they must be included, but with the hopes that the nominators would have a look and add any relevant or interesting material as they see fit (sorry for not doing this several months ago!).

• That's ok. Have seen bits and pieces but is good to record why we'll use some and not others. Will update here once we've taken a look at them all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed that several of the journal articles used as references are lacking issue #'s even though this information is available by clicking through the DOI link. Sasata (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• issues added, now, apart from one journal which doesn't appear to have them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Golding Bird

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been through GA, PR and GOCE. It is about an important figure in the history of medicine. I believe it is now ready for FA. SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In his electrotherapy, Bird used both electrochemical and electrostatic machines (and later also electromagnetic induction machines) to treat a very wide range of conditions, such as some forms of chorea. Treatments included peripheral nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and electric shock therapy. Bird also used his invention, the electric moxa, to heal skin ulcers." - source?
  • The sources are at the end of the paragraph. Is there a specific problem.electric moxa section. The paragraphs immediately following the "Electricity" heading are an introduction to what follows (a mini-lede if you like) and contain no information that is not referenced in what follows (other than the reference to the New Frankenstein magazine).
• Use a consistent format for Bird's own articles
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • The bibliography is consistently last name, first name where alphabetical listings are of some use to the reader. Elsewhere the natural form of names are used.
• FN 30 and similar: there are two works with that title
  • Done
• Why not include both authors for Payne?
  • Done
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Done
• FN 72: why not put this in Bibliography?
  • Done
• Ranges should use dashes
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not months are abbreviated
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • Done
• FN 19: formatting
  • What is the issue? I don't see the problem.
• Don't include page numbers in Bibliography book entries
  • The only one that (now) has page numbers is Steel. This is because a specific, named chapter is being referenced.

In general, citation/referencing format should be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have gone through putting ref elements in a consistent order. SpinningSpark 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) to 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• tentative Support Comments (it has engaging prose and impresses as comprehensive, and formatting looks ok. I can't seeany actionable opposes but con't exclude that others will find things to fix. I'll keep an eye on developments but I think we're tentatively over the line here) - I'll jot some notes below and copyedit as I go. Feel free to revert me if'n I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

and was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. - I'd change "advanced" to "precocious" as it has a more specific meaning which I think is what you're trying to get at here.

I did mean "advanced" and this is my understanding of the sources, in the sense that Bird was knowledgable through his own self-study. It was certainly also precocious of course.

.. at a private school that was not very interested in science - hmm, "interested" one usually thinks of students not schools, I'd go with " at a private school that did not promote (or teach?) science"

"promote" is acceptable, "teach" is not, afair the sources do not directly state science was not taught. Science is not included in the classics so this is implied, but it would by synthesis to say so.

This must be a record - nine (9) consecutive paragraphs in the Life and career section begin with "Bird...". I will change a few.....

It was only eight before it was copyedited but that still leaves me 83% to blame! SpinningSpark 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oops! I've never seen this problem before, and completely overlooked it. Thanks for dealing with it, Casliber. --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now incorporated Casliber's second suggestion in the article. SpinningSpark 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering whether the first 3 sentences in the The electric moxa section (which are a bit repetitive) can be somehow folded in together. If you can't do it, I'll take a look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried something. The flow seems better now, in that one sentence deals with the name alone before we return to the main business. I'm not quite happy about the position of the "roughly two decades ..." clause yet. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am struggling to identify what you think is being repeated. The three sentences are addressing very different points: the date of invention, etymology of moxa, and link to electroacupuncture. The second sentence is about just the element moxa and needs to distinguish its subject from the whole phrase electric moxa. The cleanest way to do this is to start a new sentence, admittedly leaving a very short first sentence. The third sentence is already quite long, would become difficult if merged with the second sentence, and needs to disambiguate that the whole phrase rather than just moxa is being discussed. Sentence one and three could be run together, and may even read better, but with the disadvantage that the reader now has to wait for the next sentence before understanding why acupuncture is being discussed at all. SpinningSpark 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stfg. If you would prefer the exact date of the introduction of electroacupuncture, it is 1823 (Simpson, already cited). SpinningSpark 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reads better now. It wasn't strict repetition per se, I just thought it could be more economical with wording when I read it and I feel it reads better now...now where was I....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You were right:) --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

...for which Bird carried out an analysis of the milk of the porpoise and a dog bitch - I was going to suggest "...of the milk of the female porpoise and a dog", but then I think it is obvious it'd have to be female so maybe female is redundant. Either way, I think it is better than the current wording, which (oddly) specifies the sex of one animal and not the other....(?)

It is "bitch" because strictly speaking "dog" refers to the male of the species but I am happy for bitch to be deleted if others think that "dog" is acceptable. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable: "bitch" has a gender but "dog" is the whole species. How about "... analysis of porpoise and dog's milk"? Hmm ... now why do I want dog to have 's but not porpoise? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting grammatical question - am tempted to shift the animals from possessive to adjectival - "dog and porpoise milk"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that works. (Interestinger and interestinger :)) I've gone ahead and put it in. Is that OK, Spinningspark? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "Collateral sciences" - and google searches seem to bring up Bird alot of the time. Did he come up with the term? If it is more of a historical one, then it needs to be noted as the way it reads now it gives it as a term in current use....

I don't think he coined it, references to it go back to 1800, if he did he would have had to have had an influence on the great many journals that used it in their title from a very early age. However, I am not surprised his name comes up often, it was very much his thing. At least one of my main modern sources (Coley) uses the phrase as if it were current, and gbooks has a lot of hits from books published in recent years. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, typing it in the singular seems to change what has come up. Hmmm, ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pulvermacher's main market for these devices was the very quack practitioners that Bird so detested, but it did actually work as a generator. - plural to singular subject (can be remedied by these type of devices if that is what is meant, or making it singular "The main market for this device..." (note I think the first word is repetitive and unneeded too.

Done as suggested. A clear improvement. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Snow had previously investigated arsenic poisoning when he and several fellow students were taken badly ill after a new process for preserving cadavers was introduced by Snow at the suggestion of lecturer Hunter Lane. -two snows in the one sentence, try and remove one if possible.

Done. It only needed turning into the active voice and the second Snow could become a he. Can't think how I let it pass last month. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Picture of GB medal should be moved down, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses it.
  • Moved picture down to paragraph above. Moving right to the end para causes push down into next section
• Section title "Controversy" could be better, more specific. Something like "Pulvermacher's chain" or "Endorsement controversy"
  • Done
• Prose is very good quality.
• "A bemused Bird pointed out ...". Is "bemused" from a secondary source? or the interpretation of a WP editor?
  • "Bemused" is perhaps too kind a characterisation of Bird's reply. I have changed it to "In a reply full of anger and sarcasm, Bird pointed out..." I think it only right that out readers should get a flavour of the tone of Bird's letter. This is hardly a synthesis, as a reading of the letter will surely show to anyone.
• Cite: minor formatting inconsistency: When using WP:CITEBUNDLE approach, the individual items within a single footnote should all terminate the same way: either with a period, or semicolon, or nothing. This article mostly uses nothing, but FN #19 has some items that terminate in period. My personal preference is a period for all, so readers dont have to guess where one item stops and the next starts.
  • The format used in this article is that short citations are treated as sentence fragments and do not have a terminating period (just as we do not use periods in an image caption that is just aentence fragment). The footnotes are nearly all short citations, but a few are given as full citations where the reference is not an article or book and does not appear in the bibliography. In those cases a period is used for consistency with the bibliography section.
• FNs 80, 81, 83 end in periods: others dont.
  • As above.
• Paragraph: "Bird was vain, with a tendency to self-promotion, and his driving ambition ..." that paragraph has a lot of disparate facts, and the end of the paragraph lists about five sources. Either (a) distribute the footnotes throughout the parag, or (b) parenthetically note within the footnote which source represents which fact.
  • Not done. The citation style would need to be changed throughout the entire article for consistency.
• "Bird designed and used a flexible tube stethoscope and in 1840 published the first ...". Do you have the year that he designed it?
  • Done
• Note 1 (not footnote 1) is a bit odd. Some issues (a) it is the only non-cite footnote; (b) the Journal Articles section looks odd with that footnote at the top; (c) it is indented farther to right that the following list of articles; (d) the Note is numbered (1) identically to the footnote (1) ... could use a letter instead. Probably the best resolution is to just eliminate Note 1. Many articles have "Works" sections, and they dont have a need for a footnote saying "and here are his works..".
  • Done. Seems to be a leftover from a previous organisation of the article.
• Pic caption: "Electrotherapeutic treatment to stimulate facial muscles, 1862". Who is the doctor in the photo? Need to state whether it is Bird or not.
  • I have no information on people in the picture, however, it is clearly not Bird as it is dated after his death.
• Alt text for pics: My understanding is that the alt text should describe the photo, so seeing-impaired users of the encyclopedia can grasp the contents of each picture. The Alt text now doesn't meet that need.
  • My understanding is that the main purpose of supplying alt text is to prevent the screen reader from reading out the image filename. To quote from WP:ALT: "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text." Under those circumstances, the most useful thing for a viually impaired reader is to keep the alt text to a token word or two so the screen reader immediately goes on to read the caption. A detailed description is only necessary where this is needed for an understanding of the article and is not supplied by the caption.
• Very good article over all (though the subject is a bit dry :-) Leaning to support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing, responses are above SpinningSpark 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) to 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is looking pretty good. My only concern is the "multiple sources bundled into one footnote at the end of the paragraph" issue. The purpose of the WP:INTEGRITY guideline is to help readers (and future validators) correlate the sources to the material in the article. WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE suggest that it is better to either: (a) have the cites per-sentence; Or, (b) use a single footnote at the end of the paragraph, and the multiple sources (in that single footnote) should have parenthetical comments identifying which source goes to which fact. For instance, if you have a 6 sentence paragraph, with a single footnote at the end containing six separate sources: how is the reader/validator to know which source corresponds to which sentence? What is the harm of adding small (one word per source) notes into the footnote to establish that association? --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the benefits of this system, but it is much more than a trivial amount of work to carry out. I am not able to comply at this time. If that is a deal breaker, then so be it. SpinningSpark 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are two scenarios illustrating why WP:INTEGRITY is so important: (1) imagine in the future that another editor edits Golding Bird and splits one of your paragraphs into two. How will that editor know which of the six sources in the original footnote go to each of the two new paragraphs? (2) Imagine that the same editor moves a sentence from paragraph A to (a more appropriate) paragraph B. How will that editor know which source (in the original footnote) to carry with the sentence? You, now, are in the best position to help that future editor by correlating the sources with the sentences. You have all the sources at your fingertips. If it is not done now, it will never get done. No other editor is going to fetch all the sources, read them, and update the footnotes. I'm not saying this is an obstacle to FA status, but why don't we see what other reviewers say? --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm uncomfortable with the citation style, as it makes verification quite a bit more difficult. However, I seem to be in the minority in that I would consider opposing the nomination based on the citation style; therefore, I will not do so.
• "He received this licence without examination because of the reputation he had gained as a student at Guy's" Guy's should be re-introduced and re-explained here. The lead should summarize the body of the article, but should not be considered an integral part of the narrative.

  I've tried something. Is it enough? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is "materia medica" not italicized? I see that it is inconsistently italicized in its article. MoS seems to call for it being italicized.

  That article appears not to have had any kind of review yet. I agree with you and have italicized it. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• "He died on 27 October 1854 at St Cuthbert from a urinary tract infection and suffering from kidney stones." Parallel structure is needed here. I could not think of a way to reword it that would leave the meaning intact. Maybe "suffering from a urinary tract infection and kidney stones"?

  There's a subtlety to watch for here. If the two conditions were joint causes of death, it would be better to have your wording without "suffering" -- he simply died from them. If the infection was the cause and the stones were merely aggravating his discomfort, then any parallel structure would mislead; in this case I would suggest "from a urinary tract infection. He was also suffering from kidney stones." --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  "For some years previous to his death, Dr. Bird had suffered from disease of the heart; a short time before that event, he had an attack of haematuria, which soon 'became associated with other and unerring evidence of renal calculus.' This was followed by pyelitis, which ended his career on the 27th of October." (The Medical Examiner)

  "By the month of October it was evident that his case was a hopeless one. Nausea, vomiting, oedema of the feet and face, haematuria, pyelitis, and vesical pain, all indicated that life was drawing to a close." (Balfour)

  "The causes of his death are thus summed up - acute rheumatism, valvular disease of the heart, jaundice, irritability of stomach, calculus, and pyelitis. (Balfour)

  SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Bird himself certainly believed so." Something about this bugs me—maybe it's the wording that suggests he had feelings about his death after the fact. I know that's not what's meant. Maybe it's no big deal.

  It bugs me too, now you mention it. This is a reason why the citation style is a difficulty. I would have gone to the sources to look for what was said and then looked for a suitable wording, but which source? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ironically, this is one of the few places where I did provide in-paragraph citations because of the likelihood of a challenge.

  "It is God's will, and the mandate is sent in mercy; but my broken health will, ere many weeks have expired, cause me, before seeing forty years, to retire from this position of honour, usefulness, and, indeed, of affluence. My success has been my bane, for I have done too much, and neglected my health." - Bird to Dr. Cormack (Balfour).

  "Bird's health was always delicate and it is likely that his tireless mental energies, spurred on in his early years by an overriding ambition, led him to drive himself too hard in his ardent desire to achieve recognition in the highest circles of his chosen profession." - (Coley).

  SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry about my oversight, and thanks for these quotes. I've tried something. Does it do? --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Only made it through Electricity—will return shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, with a couple additional comments. This is quite good—thanks for the opportunity to read and review it. It's an interesting portrait of a man of whom I was previously completely ignorant.

• "Treatment was applied in several sessions of around five minutes, often causing skin eruptions." Jargon needs linking or explaining: "skin eruptions"
• Clarification needed: "bringing on menstruation where this had failed" How does menstruation fail? Do you mean temporarily (like a late cycle) or menopause? --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and I'm glad you enjoyed it. changed "skin eruptions" to "blistering the skin". On menstruation, the first case is meant - added a link to the condition, amenorrhoea. SpinningSpark 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Support [following comments and discussions below from 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)] Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming in rather late to this review, but I saw that it hadn't had a lot of comments, and the article caught my attention when it arrived at FAC, though I didn't have time to review it then. I'm going to leave some initial comments, and then try and return to this at or before the weekend and say some more depending on the responses. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I too stumbled on "Bird was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils" - advanced does seem wrong here, but it is difficult to think of smoother wording. What I would probably do here is remove "advanced", just state the bald fact in the lead that he gave lectures at school, and leave the detail to later. The body of the article says: "Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers in science, gave lectures in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils." This is less forceful than the way it is presented in the lead ("advanced enough"), so possibly the lead needs rephrasing. SpinningSpark
  • I cannot agree that "advanced enough" is more forceful than "far ahead". It reads just the opposite to me. I do not think it is acceptable just to state he did it, an indication that this is out of the ordinary is needed. Not to do so could leave readers with the mistaken impression that this was standard practice in 19th century schools, which is not the intention at all. SpinningSpark
    • I agree that "advanced enough" is weaker than "far ahead of his teachers", because one could be even a little behind one's teacheers and still know enough to give lectures. Something somehow feels a bit awkward about "advanced enough" as a phrase. I've tried replacing it with "far enough advanced". Does it help? --Stfg (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • That does read better. About the main body of the article versus the lead, I wasn't clear enough. What threw me was the switch from "seems to have been far ahead" to "was advanced (enough)". In the main article body, there is less certainty ('seems') than in the lead ('was'). But I've struck the above point as mostly addressed. If more is done on this, it can be done independently of my commentary here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the lead as a whole, I think it needs to be heavily rewritten, possibly from scratch. Currently, it doesn't do a good job of summarising the article, and there are no dates in the lead at all. Someone reading only the lead should still be able to get an idea of the critical dates of his life other than birth and death. Currently, the reader has to read the main body of the article to find out when the events mentioned in the lead happened. Mentioning his age when he died would be a standard addition to the lead. I would suggest looking at the lead section of other FA-level biographical articles for more ideas on how to improve the lead section here.
  • If the lead is not an adequate summary, you should be able to specifically state what you think is missing. I have added has age and some dates, hopefully Stfg will check for any copyediting issues. SpinningSpark
    • adding the age at death makes the whole parenthesis need rephrasing, and none of the eight other biographical FAs I checked does it, so I hope I can be forgiven for removing that. The only other thing I saw (very minor) has been dealt with. --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The years being added has helped a lot. Tomorrow, I'll go through the comments I made here (and the new ones I'm about to add) and strike the addressed points. For now, to explain where I'm coming from on the lead section (as I was rather critical of it, probably unfairly), I would mention the year of marriage, number of children, and place of birth and death, and something brief on his death. This may be just a matter of style, though, with some preferring to pack details into the lead and others preferring to leave details until later. One thing I would definitely do is remove "a well-known teaching hospital usually referred to simply as Guy's" - that is best left until the first mention of Guy's in the main text.

      The reason some articles probably don't mention age at death and spouse and children in the lead section, is because those are present in an infobox. My view is that articles don't have to have infoboxes, are often better without them, and I oppose absolutely those who go around adding infoboxes for the sake of infoboxes. However, if there is no infobox, then the lead section should help the reader who doesn't want to have to scan through the whole article looking for basic biographical details such as name, place and dates of birth and death, profession, family, and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

      • I have added something on his death to the lede. In my view, children, marriages and exact place of death do not belong in the lede. This is not what Bird is known for; none of these things would be mentioned at all on Wikipedia if he had not been notable for other things. Whether in an infobox or the prose, it is just clutter in the lede detracting from what the article has really got to say. On the question of Guy's, the disambiguation was added at the request of a previous review. As far as I am concerned, Guy's is famous enough not to need any disambiguation or explanation and the link is good enough. However, if it is going to be explained, it has to be done at first mention in the article and cannot be relegated to the body. SpinningSpark 12:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I agree that Guy's doesn't need explaining. I'd put the glossing of Guy's in a footnote, rather than in the text, but the lead has improved enough for me to strike my objections. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• The phrasing "Born [...] to a father" is awkward. Is there a reason more standard phrasings haven't been used?
  • Amended. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• It may be worth being explicit about the age he left school and become an apprentice apothecary. It was normal for those times, but modern readers will not all be aware of this.
  • The age would be 14. I will leave it stfg to work that in nicely. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Worked in. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• It would be better to maintain chronological order and put the 1836 apothecary licensing after the 1832 commencing of medical studies at Guy's. There is no need to jump back and forth in time, as that only confuses readers.
  • Withdrawing this objection, after reconsidering it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• No explanation is given for the sudden switch from London to Scotland (St Andrews). If the details here are sparse, it is best to say this in the text, rather than fall silent and leave gaps. Maybe "St Andrews required no residence" means he gained this degree while still living and working in London? If so, that should be said explicitly.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• I really dislike "Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now." This misses the point entirely. What you need to do, if this is to make any sense, is to compare with spending power then, not spending power now. What was typical incomes then? That sort of thing. Also, "At the end of his career" could be just "at his death x years later".
  • Ok, but at least the inflation template automatically calls up decent reliable sources. What sources should be used for your suggestion? I don't want to do a random google search and come up with something dubious or OR. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • My view has always been that side digressions into matters of economics and wealth should be relegated to a footnote, much as digressions on name pronunciation and name variants and names in different languages. The whole point is to give the reader an idea of where this wealth placed Bird in the society he lived in. My vague impression is that he (like most doctors) was able to make a very good living, but he was not among the most fabulously wealthy. But this is obvious from his purchase of property and other things mentioned in the article. Consider, when people end up in poverty, there is no such strained attempt to convert monetary values, they are just said to have died destitute and in poverty. Quite why so much effort is spent converting monies received into 'present-day' values I'm not sure. Sometimes I think it would be better to say nothing, and just give the value of his wealth, remind the reader that it was a lot of money for that time, and let the reader investigate further if they will. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't agree that readers should be left to work out for themselves that this was a lot of money, many will be unable to do so without some kind of yardstick. Simply saying it is a lot of money without one of the sources actually saying this would be OR. It may well be that I am not using the best yardstick (although it is something commonly seen in newspapers) but it is the only reliably sourced one currently available to me. I am an electrical engineer and as far as economics is concerned I wouldn't know a reliable source from a confederate dollar. Alternative suggestions welcome. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, the DNB article on him by Payne (published 1885) had this to say: "He was very successful in practice, and there are few instances of a London physician having earned as large an income as he did so early in life." FWIW, that wasn't kept in the updated version in September 2004 in the ODNB. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Bird was a member of the Linnaean and Geological Societies, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of London." - it should be trivial to find the years when he was elected to these societies, and this should be included.
  • Done for Royal Society, looking for the others. SpinningSpark 11:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The Geological Society page is currently offline with a problem but does state it is still accessible to members. So unless a member is watching this page, we will have to wait for that information. The Linnean Society website does not seem to have details of members: I have e-mailed them and await a response. SpinningSpark 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I found mention of the election to the Geological Society [books.google.co.uk/books?id=sT0iAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA414 here]. That is in a volume of that society's proceedings, covering the period 1833 to 1838. Not been able to work out which year that was (those pages are loading slowly for me here), but it should be possible to pin down the details from that. Note that he is stated there to already be FLS, so the election to the Linnean Society came first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I've put it in, but linking the ref to a better site than google books. I also removed the "of London" qualifier to the Royal Society which was difficult to keep with the new sentence structure. This was requested at a previous review but its notability does not really need it, is consistent with its own article title, and the London context of Bird makes it self-explanatory. Anyone disagreeing can feel free to put it back in, but it would really need to be done for all three societies. SpinningSpark 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree with the removal of the 'of London' qualifier for the Royal Society (and noticed the updating of the categories as well). A couple more minor points on societies, did Bird use the postnomials much? I looked at one edition of his book, and he did use some of them. I can't remember what the guidance is here on Wikipedia for which ones to use, but posssibly some of them should go in the lead? I also noticed a list of foreign societies he was a corresponding member of. I only looked up one (the 'Philosophical Institute of Basle') and noticed that he was elected to that at the same time as Faraday, and it was rather celebrated at the time. Possible a sentence noting that he was also elected to membership of foreign learned societies (probably quite a few, as the book title page ends with 'etc.'), but it depends more what your sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Can't say I've taken much notice of what he used. Looking at one letter from the refs at random he used his medical degrees but not the learned societies, although this was pre FRS. The relevant guideline is WP:POSTNOM but it is unclear to me from that whether or not learned societies are to be included (possibly it means the more notable ones - and then we have to decide...). I don't recall his membership of foreign societies being mentioned in any of the sources. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm not greatly bothered about it, but raise it for stability reasons as you may get people trying to add postnomials at some point. The DNB [slightly modified in the ODNB] does say: "He was also a corresponding member of several learned societies on the continent [in Europe]", but give no further details. The link you provide in the article to the third (1848) edition of Elements of Natural Philosophy has on the title page:

                "AM, MD, FRS, FLS, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; late President of the Westminster Medical Society; Corresponding Member of the Philosophical Institute of Bale, of the Philosophical Society of St Andrews, of the Medical Society of Hamburgh, etc.; Assistant-Physician to, and Professor of Materia Medica at, Guy's Hospital."

                For what that is worth. I wasn't sure how prestigious those corresponding memberships were (the one for Basle, here spelt Bale, does seem fairly prestigious), or how common it was to be elected a corresponding member, so I was hoping your other sources would have more. If not, then fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• The reference to the London Electrical Society is interesting. It was these electrical demonstrations that (in part) eventually led to the science behind electricity being uncovered, but that's drifting off-topic here.
  • Yes, that's why I redlinked it, it is on my to do list. Going off-topic even further, do you have any good sources for this? SpinningSpark
    • No, but my recollection of this came from that recent TV documentary series on electricity on BBC4, well worth a look if you missed it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• "notable winners of the medal" - the phrasing 'winners' is unencyclopedic here. Medals like that are awarded to recipients, not won. Suggest changing to 'recipients'.
  • "unencyclopedic"? ;) But I agree that "recipients" is the right word here. Done. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are my initial comments, having read up to the end of the 'Life and career' section. I've skimmed the rest, and my concern here is that there may be too much material being presented here. The question I'd want to see answered before going any further is whether this article is summarising Bird's life and work, or whether it is aggregating various sources to expand on the shorter accounts provided elsewhere, but falling into the trap of providing too much detail? Could you say which of your sources gives the longest account of Bird's life and works, and whether this article is of comparable length or not? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Downloading the article as pdf it amounts to 12 pages not including refs etc. My main modern source is Coley at 14 pages. Payne is 2 pages. Of the contemporary sources Balfour is 67 pages (although it has to be said there are frequent sermon-like digressions), the relevant chapter of Steel is 9 pages and Wilks (chapter) is 6 pages. I would also point out that a good deal of material has already been moved to the spin-off articles interrupter and Pulvermacher's chain because of length or excessive detail concerns. The current length seems to me to be a reasonable match to the sources. SpinningSpark 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, just to offer a third opinion as someone who as read through it: I thought the level of detail was appropriate and pursuant to summary style. There were several places where I actually wanted to read more detail, but it would have become too much if added. I get the impression that Bird's contributions to more than one field were quite significant, and the article is appropriately sized. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and having now had time to read through the rest of the article more closely I tend to agree. But I am looking for more than just an 'impression' regarding Bird's contributions. I think an article aspiring to FA level, with these sort of sources, should be able to say clearly what Bird's status was during his lifetime and how he is seen now by modern historians of medicine. I'm not yet seeing the clarity and definitive statements that I would expect. This FAC was introduced with the statement that Bird is "an important figure in the history of medicine". The question I would ask is how important? Compared to figures like Thomas Addison and Astley Cooper for instance? The article covers the medal that was founded in his honour, but there is nothing on contemporary reaction to his death. Were there obituaries? Did his colleagues lament his death as a great loss? And how did views change over time (i.e. what is the modern view by historians)? I would at the least expect some direct quotes covering these points.

And to give more of an idea of where I'm coming from on the issue of level of detail, I recently wrote the article on Victor Negus (another medical practitioner from a few generations later), and have been considering expanding that to go into more detail, but it's a balancing act between on the one hand a succinct and readable account of someone's life and career, and a more in-depth look at the work they did. Probably at some point you have to chose to go one way or the other with the article. My concern here was that things may have gone too far towards the in-depth approach, but I'm reassured somewhat upon reading through the article again and from what Spinningspark has said about some of the material being spun off to other articles. I do have a few more specific comments from when I read through it again today, so I'll jot those down now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favour of any major restructuring or additions to the article during the course of the FAC. To do so would only lead to confusion and probably result in the FAC being restarted anyway. If it is a cause for failure it would be better to let it fail now and bring it back later. But pass or fail, if you wish it, I am willing to collaborate with you on the issue after the FAC has concluded. SpinningSpark 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a very valid point. Practically all the minor points have been struck, and this is my only major point left. I'm not sure I can quite support yet, but I'm not going to oppose as it is a very good article. I would be happier supporting if you could give some indication within this FAC of what contemporary reaction was (why, for instance, did Balfour write a biography of him, was the Christian society connection the motivation there?) and the most definitive quote from a modern historian of medicine that you have available. With that reassurance that there is material there to work on the contemporary status (e.g. the article says at one point that he is famous, without really expanding on that point) and reputation after death (right up to the present day). I'd then be happy to support and leave any further work for after the FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both Balfour and Steel write from a religious pov and sing his praises. The article already mentions Bird's connection to Balfour. However, somewhere in Balfour (can't give page numbers off the top of my head) he also talks about Bird being repeatedly accosted in the street for medical advice due to his fame while he is on holiday. I think the obituaries already cited in the article could well be said to "lament his death as a great loss" and their are probably others (list in a footnote in Coley). Coley (modern source) is perhaps too scholarly to use "famous" but does describe him as a "well-known physician". SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Let me take another look at the way in which the sources are handled here. I'm sure the use of the sources (both modern and contemporary) are fine, but I need to check before I can properly support. I am slightly concerned that, not having clicked on the Coley source link before now, I was taken to what is clearly the wrong article: Molecular cloning and sequence analysis of human Na,K-ATPase beta-subunit from 1986? Is that the wrong article ID or something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird, even putting in the correct article id to that rendering url does not go to the right page any more. I cannot even find a link to that rendering on the pubmed site (clicking the scan or pdf render links gives a similar rendering but with a different url), I can only assume that the ids used by the rendering are temporary and have changed since the article bibliography was written. I have now put in what should be a more stable link to the article full text. Sorry I did not notice it earlier, I have been working from an offline copy - actually, I had even forgotten it was available online it has been so long. SpinningSpark 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now read through the whole Coley article, and the balance and mix seems to have been got right between summarising what Coley said, bringing in other sources, and rephrasing things in your own words where needed, so I'm happy to support. Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of my comments during the review. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple more comments:

• "Bird did not limit himself to challenging his brother-in-law." This should still be "future" here, as not yet married.

  Done. --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1853 he purchased an estate, St Cuthbert, for his retirement in Tunbridge Wells, but it needed some work, and he could not leave London until June 1854. Meanwhile, he continued to see patients, but only in his house, despite seriously deteriorating health." My impression here was that this implies he was intending to retire, but died before he could. But when I read the ODNB article, it stated that he did retire (can't remember the year). Did the ODNB simplify things a bit here? From memory, they refer to him retiring from hospital work.

  He was officially retired, but seems to have been congenitally unable to actually stop except when completely impaired. He did actually get to St. Cuthbert but it was for a very brief time. The exact sentence from ODNB is "He resigned his hospital appointment on 4 August 1853 and the following year retired from practice." SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• A picture of his grave should be possible. Not essential, but would be nice to try and get that picture. It can be seen here. That could be added to an external links section (which currently doesn't exist).

  Added link. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Cyril Golding-Bird related? Might be difficult to confirm (I tried and failed), but when the article is written on Cuthbert (who died childless, I think, so maybe a different branch of the family if it is the same family), it would be nice to get all three linking properly with hatlinks and placed on surname pages where needed.

  No idea, but the name is so unusual it is likely. I will make a note of it in Cuthberts draft notes. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Found his father Rev. Robert J. Golding-Bird and a lot of books by him but got stuck after that. Possibly Cyril is a grandson. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Continued on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird is mentioned in Tracheotomy but that work is not mentioned here. I'm guessing from your draft for Cuthbert in your userspace, that the wrong Bird/Golding-Bird has been credited in that article. If so, might be worth fixing sooner rather than later.

  Yes that's a mistake (apparently my own). That's what you get for letting electrical engineers edit medical articles. Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) and 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Henry Letheby (another article where Bird is mentioned) worth mentioning here?

  It is going a little off-topic. There was a great deal of material here about interrupters but it has been spun out to another article to keep this one focused. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  If Letheby improved on Bird's work, it's not really off-topic, as it puts Bird's work in context (i.e. who preceded him and who followed him). But this is relatively minor, so I'll strike this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'frog galvanoscope' is a red-link in this article (though I found your draft). There is an article on something different, called the frog battery with mentions of Bird and a picture of his frog battery. You (Spinningspark) wrote that article (which looks excellent) and uploaded that picture. Is there any reason not to mention and link to it from this article?

  Yes, another spin off, I just had to drop everything else and write that one. Bird certainly covers this topic in his textbook and used it in lectures. But it is not his original invention and so has been left out as not strictly relevant. It is just a piece of laboratory equipment - the Isaac Newton article does not give details of the scales he used for instance, although most likely the information could be found in his writings. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article Pathological Society of London claims Bird was a member. Can this be sourced and added to this article, remembering that some sources confuse Bird and the Golding-Birds?

  Yes, the source in that article verifies the claim. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• There is another article mentioning the Golding Bird award: D. Bernard Amos. If that can be sourced, is that worth adding as well?

  Done. SpinningSpark 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the above from Cyril onwards all found by searches within Wikipedia and using "what links here" (apologies if you knew of most of those already). As I said above, I'll return to this tomorrow and strike what has been addressed, and I may have a few more comments on the latter parts of the article (which I read today), such as pointing out that named people are at times not properly introduced, leaving the reader with little idea who these named people are. Overall, the more I read the article, the more I like it, though it was a bit hard to get into at first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All my comments and objections either struck or responded to above. I am close to supporting, but am waiting on a few more replies. I doubt I will have much more to add, as the article looks in good condition. On the CITEBUNDLE issue, I too found it moderately difficult to work out which bits were from which source, and that will make it hard for future editors to make changes and retain text-source integrity. If I ever have reason to consult some of the sources used here that I wasn't able to access during this FAC, I may try and unpack things a bit on the talk page or somewhere helpful (with a link to the version that is being deconstructed). Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: Have just tidied up some source documents at wikisource and created the page Bird, Golding (DNB00). That is the 1885 entry for Golding Bird in the DNB, which is what formed the basis for the updated entry in the ODNB in 2004 (updated again in May 2008). That ODNB entry is referred to in this article as 'Payne and McConnell'. Payne is Joseph Frank Payne. His wikisource author page is at Joseph Frank Payne and there are more details on him here (providing this so it is clear what Payne's credentials are). I've added a wikisource box to the Golding Bird article, so the DNB entry can be accessed that way (it is also available from the ODNB site as well). Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Ucucha (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Images:

• All images are verified in the public domain, except:
• File:Bird stethoscope.jpg - I do have a question about this one. Since this came from a 19th-century magazine, wouldn't it be public domain? If so, is the uploader allowed to apply a more restrictive license to it? Spinningspark has uploaded it and applied a cc by-sa 3.0 license. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, that's an error - I make no claim to this image: licence corrected. SpinningSpark 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you, sir. All images look good now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• While I can see there's been a fair bit of discussion on citations, has anyone made a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing?
• Re. citations, there are still a couple of instances that seem overloaded at first glance, e.g.
  • Bird was a Fellow of the Linnaean Society, the Geological Society (elected 1835) and the Royal Society (elected 1846).[5][8][13][14] -- given three organisations are mentioned, are four citations really necessary?
  • He is buried in Woodbury Park Cemetery, Tunbridge Wells.[5][13][21] -- bit hard to imagine three sources being required for his burial place.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It would seem perverse to remove refs having done the work of establishing they cover the cited fact. Many of the book sources also have overlapping coverage, but have been bundled into a single inline ref so are not so visible. SpinningSpark 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The references appearing at the end of the burial place sentence puzzle me. It seems to be a consequence of bundling references at the end of paragraphs, because the three online references there don't give his burial place at all, so presumably the burial place is from one of the book references and the three online references I'm looking at are in fact being used to cite material that appears earlier in the paragraph, but what, I don't know. There are problems with those three references anyway: (i) The obituary from the St Louis medical and surgical journal is all of six lines long. It is not really an obituary, more a death notice. I would strongly urge dropping this as a reference, as from what I can see it provides nothing that is not covered in other sources. (ii) The other two online references are archive records where the archivists have compiled biographical information using biographical sources. It would be preferable (almost required in my view) to use the proper sources here, rather than piggybacking on the summary provided by archives. The archive records should, in my view, only be used to source statements about the archives (that they exist, where they are located, when they were deposited, and what they contain). They shouldn't be used to source biographical details. Both archive records (the Kings College London archives and the AIM25 record of the archives at the Royal College of Surgeons of England) give the biographical sources they have used: "Dictionary of National Biography CD-ROM (Oxford University Press, 1995)" and "Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians, Volume 4, 1826-1925, p39 and The Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Volume 3, Page 332". The former (the DNB entry of 1885) has already been dealt with by linking the wikisource transcription and using the ODNB entry (initially published 2004) as a source. The latter two, the entries in the volumes of Lives from the RCP (written by the same person who wrote the 1885 DNB entry) and the RCS (this likely refers to Bird's son, not Bird himself), should be used directly as sources, as relying on summaries produced by archivists is not ideal. The archival records should really be external links, not sources, and I'm going to add the second one (the AIM25 record) in the external links. What is needed in terms of the article is to be clear what those archival records are being used to cite in this article that can't be cited using other sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Missouri River

Nominator(s): Shann_ºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on the Missouri River article for something like half an year since the last (and third) FAC. Between then and now I have thoroughly copyedited the page, completely rewritten three sections (including the lead) and addressed all issues brought up in previous reviews, in the fear of breaking the record for most failed FACs on WP. The page has been a good article for over nine months now; overall I think it is comprehensive and well-referenced enough to deserve featured status.

Missing alt texts, broken links and dablinks have been repaired as of the day of the nomination for the convenience of the FA reviewers.

Shann_ºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Improvements have been made since the previous nomination, but I still feel the article does not meet the FA criteria. A sampling of concerns:

• "However, his reputation was enhanced in 1720 when the Pawnee–who had earlier been befriended by Bourgmont–massacred the Spanish Villasur expedition near present-day Columbus, Nebraska on the Missouri River and temporarily ending Spanish encroachment on French Louisiana." - source?
• "By the early 21st century, declines in populations of native species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species." - source?
• Numerous inconsistencies in reference/citation formatting, and some incomplete citations. Journal articles without weblinks need page numbers. Same with newspapers.
• Considerable sandwiching of text between tables and images - on my screen, the Navigation section is actually made quite difficult to follow because of the layout
• MOS issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc
• File:Pick-Sloan_Plan.png: source link returns error. Same for File:Yellowstone_(steamboat)_aground.jpg, File:Missouririver1.jpg, File:Nishnabotna_River_aerial.jpg
• What makes the Ezine article, which triggered the spam filter when I tried to note it here, a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed all the above comments except maybe overlinking. Could you please specify which section(s) to look at? Also, the Ezine reference (which I replaced) did not have a URL, so I can only wonder how it triggered the spam filter... Shann_ºn 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some reference formatting I noticed right away (in the five or so minutes I looked):

• Some citations for PPL Montana/pplmontana.org seem to be duplicated; also, use one of the two names consistently
• A fair few of the citations have inconsistent (to the assumed article standard of YYYY-MM-DD) date formatting
• If you're going to use cite doi, make sure ALL names are formatted the way cite doi does it, or copy the information into a different cite template
• Check all the ISBN numbers for consistent use of dashing.

This is by no means an exhaustive review, however. Clay^Clay_Clay 06:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, except I'm not really sure what you mean by "all names are formatted the way Cite doi does it," as far as I know this template automatically fills out the refs, and I have limited control over what it actually does. Shann_ºn 06:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is, since Cite doi formats its references a certain way, to use consistent style either all references should be formatted that way or Cite doi would not be appropriate: see Template:Cite doi#Formatting. Clay^Clay_Clay 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll use a different cite template, then, since I don't want to convert the 200-ish other citations instead :P Shann_ºn 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Finished that.Shann_ºn 01:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Still seeing MOS issues - overlinking and dash problems just in the lead. Use either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes; don't link very common terms like Europe, and don't relink terms, especially not in close proximity (like Cenozoic twice in as many paragraphs). Lots of citation issues - compare publisher formatting on FNs 5 and 6, remove stray punctuation marks as in FNs 55 and 182 among others, compare author formatting on FNs 41 and 64, need page numbers for FNs 99-101, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed all the above, except for ref 182 – Im not sure what you mean by stray punctuation mark. I looked over the citation a dozen times and all I notice is the double periods after the author name, which are caused by the template syntax. This also occurs on other featured articles including ref 84 on Columbia River. Are those supposed to exist or should I just remove the period after Lee W. ? Shann_ºn 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

request to comment on above question received no reply, Im assuming that said problems are considered fixed Shann_ºn 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think the nominator has done a great job on this massive 10,196-word article; given its size, the abovementioned problems are understandable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Please note the overlinking I fixed. I'm surprised this is still going through FAC unnoticed.
• "a population of over six hundred thousand"—personal pref for "more than". You might like it better too?
• long-standing.
• MOSDASH: "Kansas City, Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas,". And there are a few boundaries that need dashes, not hyphens.
• "A fairly undeveloped reach"—more encyclopedic might bre "relatively", if such a word is necessary.
• Yellowstone River pic: why 160px? It was tiny. I've boosted to 240px. Quite a few others would be improved by boosting (personal pref.).
• Looks very well-written to me. Tony (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dashes fixed, wow, there were quite a few that I missed on the last run through. I also tweaked the words you mentioned above. Shann_ºn 02:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• tentative Support Comments WRT prose. I think we're mostly there - the prose looks good now. There might be a few redundant words here and there but no-deal-breakers are left. This is conditional on those who are more familiar with the river happy with factual weighting etc. so I'll keep and eye on the page- beginning a read-through now. I'll jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Missouri's headwaters forks also extend significantly farther upstream... - grammar

It is unclear exactly how far beyond the Platte his expedition actually traveled up the Missouri. Bourgmont described the blond-haired Mandans in his journals, so it is likely that he reached as far as their villages in present-day North Dakota - the bit immediately preceding this segment tells us they're going along the Missouri River, in which case, the first sentence is largely redundant, and can be reworded " It is unclear exactly how far past this point they travelled, though Bourgmont described the blond-haired Mandans in his journals, so it is likely that he reached as far as their villages in present-day North Dakota"

In 1801, the Spanish restored the Americans the rights to use the Mississippi and New Orleans - "restored to the Americans"?

Looking promising though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the Notes and the bottom main-text section.

• "which is just over one-half of the length of the Missouri."
• "is maintained by various federal and state government agencies"—you could lose one word.
• "all the land within the preserve is open to hiking and camping"—can "the" be removed? I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect it can.
• "The river also flows through or past many National Historic Landmarks,"—lose "also" (note that two "alsos" do appear to be necessary in this section).
• "Parts of the river itself are also designated for recreational or preservational use."—unsure "also" is doing anything useful. Nor here: "The preserve also includes a wide variety of"
• Personal pref. only: you might consider "about" rather than the ungainly "approximately". Tony (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Made corrections to all the above (I hope). Shann_ºn 06:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO...not going to section off this, but want to add a few comments as this goes through review...I'll add comments as I can over the next few days to a week...

• In Course section....end of second paragraph, "the Milk River enters from the left"...perhaps better if we say from the "north"...[18]...Maybe double check the direction tributary rivers and streams enter...via topoquest. Some confusion when we're talking about stream flow..I think it should all emphasize whether tributaries flow into the Missouri from the north, south, east or west, rather than left or right...again, Course section, third paragraph, last sentence: "While it continues south, eventually reaching Oahe Dam in South Dakota, the Grand, Moreau and Cheyenne Rivers all join the Missouri from the right"...the Missouri itself is flowing south, but what direction are these other rivers flowing into it from...
  • Changed the left/right pile to N-S-E-W. I'll look over the article for more.. Shann_ºn 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in at this late date and only on this single issue, which caught my eye. Shannon had it right originally. The convention for course descriptions is to use left and right heading downstream rather than to attempt compass descriptions. It's probably helpful to link to Wiktionary's left and right on first use. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it's the convention... but IMO it actually works better, I think, for this article. I don't know why. Would you think changing them back is a good idea or leaving it as is? Shann_ºn 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't change them back on my account. Leave as is. My real concern was that someone might leap from this to changing the left-rights in all the course descriptions in the encyclopedia. Yow! Finetooth (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Maps indicate the Gallatin flows into the Missouri only one mile after the Jefferson and Madison Rivers merge at Three Forks, Montana...U.S. Geological Survey map via Topoquest...the Madison is at lower left coming in from the west, the Jefferson is flowing in from the south and those two river merge right above the 4044 elevation point at lower left...and before the canyon, the Gallatin meets the Missouri as it flows from the south...[19]
• First sentence in Course section..."From the Rocky Mountains of Montana and Wyoming, three streams rise to form the headwaters of the Missouri River."...this seems confusing...the three main rivers that all meet to form the Missouri are the Madison, Jefferson and Gallatin...also, though it doesn't specify the mountains, this source says the headwaters are at 11,000 feet (3,400 m) [20]
  • A lot of the rivers tributaries originate above 11,000 feet... like the Middle Fork of the South Platte River which rises at something like 13,000 feet on Mt Democrat in Colorado. And some of the tributaries of the Wind/Bighorn rivers too, well above eleven thousand feet. Though Gallatin Lake is at around 9000 feet, and Madison Lake is well below at some 8,300 feet. Shann_ºn 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Source lists Mount Jefferson (Bitterroot Range) as the headwater source for the river...[21]

• • I concur with Mongo on this and suggest that the source above that he cites along with the Montana river sources contained in the article be used to support the discussion of the source of the Missouri. The use of topo maps sources is problematic because usually (as is the case here) the actual content is an interpretation of what one editor thinks the topomap is illustrating. For example, the topo doesn't actually say that Bower spring is the source of the Missouri, that's an interpretation of the map data. Even seasoned editors on geographic articles like Mongo can make a mistake interpreting map data. (Being familar with the points of a compass it would be physically impossible short of the contruction of a huge aquaduct for the Madison to enter the Missouri headwaters from the West and the Jefferson from the South when the entire length of the Jefferson is west of the Madison) On the other hand, the source and sources within that Mongo cites, actually do discuss this in detail. Another point I'd like to make is that the three forks of the Missouri (regardless of which one is the farthest from the mouth) ought to be discussed with equal weight about their origin. ie. The Madison flows from Madison Lake on the Madison plateau in YNP, the Gallatin flows from Gallatin Lake in the Gallatin range in YNP and the Jefferson flows from the Centennials. Although the Gibbon is confluence source of the Madison, it is just another tributary. I think the most interesting fact about the headwaters of the Missouri is the the three forks actually form in many different ranges from the Beaverhead mountains to the West, East to the Gallatin Range.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm looking around for some books to cite on the orgination, but what is in the article seems accurate enough...though we may know more, we can only add what we can cite of course. Your feedback is very much appreciated.--MONGO 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Browers Spring is located on Mount Jefferson, so IMO it's either to mention the spring or the mountain, since its referring to roughly the same location. Though I'd say the spring is probably the more well-known of the two, and has traditionally been considered as the Missouri's source as far as I know... Shann_ºn 06:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Those are valid points...I suggest we just stick with the Bowers Spring one...--MONGO 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I edited the first paragraph of course to mention the furthest origins of each of the headwaters (Madison and Gallatin Lakes etc.) Shann_ºn 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Though not critical in itself, but we may want to mention that in addition to electrical generation from the dams, the Missouri River also has 3 nuclear power plants adjacent to it's course...I might write it as: Three nuclear power generating facilities are located adjacent to the Missouri River, including the Callaway Nuclear Generating Station in Missouri as well as the Cooper Nuclear Station and Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station, which are both in Nebraska.
  • I'd agree, except not sure what section. I would have put it in the Dams section but... that's about dams. Shann_ºn 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Me neither...again, it's not that critical.--MONGO 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support and kudos to Shannon1 for sheparding this expansive article to this level.--MONGO 07:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I continue to support this article. It is better than it was at FAC3 when I supported. I continue to think that this article is being held to a higher standard than it should because the majority of the current FA rivers are really streams and creeks. Of the 10 current river FAs (Bull Run River (Oregon), Chetco River, Columbia River, Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Jordan River (Utah), Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), River Parrett, Rogue River (Oregon), St. Johns River, and Willamette River), 6 are steams and creeks less than 60 miles in length, while 9 are 310 miles or less. In addition, FA has 8 actual creeks less than 25 miles (Aliso Creek (Orange County), Balch Creek, Big Butte Creek, Fanno Creek, Larrys Creek, Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), Tryon Creek, White Deer Hole Creek). This article compares favorably to the Columbia (1243 miles).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments technical things...

• Are you sure all of those pre-collapsed tables are good per WP:COLLAPSE?
• In the Major tributaries table, you have a blank cell for the purposes of having both a rowspan and sortability. There are examples of how to avoid this, see List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers for instance. I'm not keen at all on the current solution.
• Is there a purpose for the coloured cells or is it simply for visual pleasure?
• Row and col scopes (per MOS:DTT) should be used to enable screen-readers to make best use of these tables.
• In the Dams table, what is the purpose of the odd cell being coloured?
• When sorting this table, the "total" row moves too, this should be locked in place at the bottom (have a look at the code here relating to class="sortbottom").
• Ref 72 needs a space after its pp.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed all the tables as you suggested, it looks a lot cleaner now. Yes, the colored table cells are just for readability purposes because some readers might get lost in the wall of figures therein (like I sometimes do). I don't know if the tables should be collapsed or not. The reason I collapsed them was because they make the article look too cluttered if they werent. Shann_ºn 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: The article is well-researched and highly informative, with many excellent diagrams, tables and images to illustrate major points and concepts. I personally can't see what could now be done to improve the article in any significant way. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- I can see that Nikki has not withdrawn her long-standing oppose despite acknowledgement/actions in response to her comments, and a couple of pings from the nominator and Ucucha. On some of those issues raised:

• Overlinking doesn't seem too bad anymore, though I wouldn't bother linking such things as en masse and canoe, for instance.
• Re. citations, date formatting is looking consistent but no need to link organisations and publishers after first instance, e.g. Geographic Names Information System, U.S. Geological Survey, and there's still inconsistency with multiple authors, e.g. FNs 41 and 64 separate them with semi-colons (generally preferred in my experience) but FNs 65 and 66 use commas -- pls check throughout and be consistent.

Other points, for my part:

• Make sure journal/newspaper names are italicised throughout, e.g. Sioux City Register.
• Putting everything from First peoples to Dam-building era (inclusive) under a History section makes more sense to me from a structural perspective that having all those history sections at the same level as other distinct aspects such as Geology and Ecology.
• I'm not one of those who is against See also sections in FAs per se but there's a fair few items here. Pls revisit and check that none are already linked in the main body and, better still, see if you can't in fact link a few in the main body instead; e.g. since you mention buffalo, I'd have thought you could link Great bison belt somewhere.
• Pls provide a link/diff for a prior recent FAC spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected all the aformentioned issues. However the most recent spotcheck I can find was from last year (in FAC2), and all the issues raised there were corrected during that FAC. Also, what you said about History makes sense, but I feel it's a little too much content for a single header. Many other articles on large rivers, e.g. Columbia River, also split up their history sections. Shann_ºn 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re. the structural point, well, I've used precedent myself when responding to suggestions on my own FA noms in the past, so I can hardly fault you there...

As far as your last spotcheck goes, that's a fair while ago so we'd better have one for this nom -- will list at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

update -- Unfortunately I don't know how to remove the wikilinks to the USGS in the first three refs, because it's part of the Cite gnis template. Shann_ºn 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, perhaps a bit of over-engineering on the part of the template designers there but that's not your fault. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)s

Comment There are quite a few dead links. Also, there are still some citation formatting issues, particularly when using the same publisher or work many different times. Suggest looking through groups of citations from the same publisher/work and make sure they are formatted consistently. Some specifics:

• Compare refs 139 and 140 with 143 and 145.
• U.S. National Park Service vs. National Park Service
• 182: Website publisher= needs capitalization

While the citations have improved a lot, the combination of dead links and formatting inconsistencies is worrisome. Clay^Clay_Clay 00:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed all the citations as you suggested; also I took care of the dead links. I will do a last run through of the citations tomorrow. Shann_ºn 07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's one instance of National Park Service left without U.S.;

You need to check all of the warnings on Checklinks, not just the red "Dead" rated references: the first one listed (#85) comes up as a 404 even though it only has a "Suspicious" rating, and I'm sure most in the "Suspicious" (orange) and probably some in the "Connection issue" (blue) category will be dead links as well. It would be great if you checked out the "Status" errors (green) and corrected those links also to avoid link rot in the future. Clay^Clay_Clay 09:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through and corrected all the remaining ones. A lot of them were not dead, though. Anyways, I added archive linkes to the ones that are, etc. Shann_ºn 03:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, my previous concerns were fixed, thank you. I am looking through again:

• All the USGS Gage references need ending dates (in lieu of "present"): some date to 2009 and some to 2010. See 17 (or 47, depending on the style you're going for) for suggestions on what they should look like, pick one style and use it for all of these refs.
• 133 needs an access date
• Are 176 and 179 the same reference? if not, which one is 178 referring to? (Dyer)
• 194 vs 193 (archive placement & formatting)

The things I can pick at wrt referencing are starting to dwindle, I'm reasonably confident you'll stop hearing my random complaints soon :) (also, thanks for bearing with me, it's the first time I've meaningfully reviewed references in an article) Clay^Clay_Clay 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Finished. Good to hear this about the references. The referencing is always what's killed this article at prior FACs. Shann_ºn 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)