Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Deathrow (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): czar  21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a quick and neat little read: Deathrow, the 2002 ultraviolent futuristic rugby alternative sports game that combines hockey, basketball, and a gang fight. Reviewers commented on its edginess and compared it to a tradition of futuristic rugby alternative sports. And boy did they love the cursing. Almost everyone commented on the game's frequent f-bombs, which became perhaps its defining characteristic. The IGN reviewer called it "best use of endless cursing in a game... ever" and the EGM reviewer could tell the developers were European because of the "awkward, over-the-top expletives in obnoxious American accents" paired with rugby. The prose flows nicely and it says just enough about the core encyclopedic subtopics without going into excessive detail. Thanks for taking a look czar  21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Czar. 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, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wisp (Sonic)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most obscure subjects for an FAC you're likely to have seen lately: Wisps are aliens that function as power-ups in three Sonic the Hedgehog games – and, in the second, just as a throwback to the first. However, critics have given copious opinions on these critters, and they're only going to get more relevant with time (if Takashi Iizuka can be trusted), so I began building the article from nothing late this March. I've been creating and working solidly on Sonic character articles lately – it's nice that we actually have articles now on some characters whose introductions I'm old enough to remember.

The article passed its GAN while it was on the front page with a DYK, and I've realized that if it passes FAC, I'll be in the running for a Four Award. (Awards aren't a big deal to me, but this one'd be nice to have.) I've addressed comments made at PR and done a few more edits for readability, and I now feel that this fits the FA criteria. Moreover, Pokémon Channel has been promoted so I'm now eligible to nominate. With that out of the way, I'm gonna reach for the star tonight! Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr. Blofeld (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been one of the toughest articles I've ever worked on. As a kid I loved Enid Blyton's books, and I remember in my second year at primary school, when I came top of the class, being allowed to choose my prize, which was a Noddy book. Blyton died in 1968, yet she's still one of the world's most popular authors, but her story isn't an easy one to tell. I hope you'll find that Dr. Blofeld and I have made a decent fist of trying to encapsulate one of the most prolific authors ever into the space of a Wikipedia article. Eric Corbett 19:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments (delegate, don't take this as either support or oppose at this stage)
  • I'm fairly certain the dog in the Famous Five was just Timmy, not short for Timothy as currently stated.
    I believe you're right, now changed. Eric Corbett 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Georgina refer to him as Timothy when he'd done something wrong? I see even Famous Five books refer to it as Timothy the Dog looking in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is this illustrated with a picture of Thatcher Rock in Devon, which has no connection to Blyton other than the fact that the uploader of the photo has said it "looks like Kirrin Island"? Kirrin Island is set in Dorset in the books but based on Elizabeth Castle Island in the Channel Islands ("It was an island I once visited several times when I was in Jersey, it lay off the coast and could only be reached either by boat or by a rocky path exposed when the tide was out. It had an old castle there and I longed to put the island and castle into a book. So I did, as you know!"), while Whispering Island is a very thinly disguised Brownsea Island, off the coast of Poole.)
I suspected that photo might bring some comments. I thought it looked like something out of a Blyton novel (which the photographer obviously also did too, calling it Kirrin Island) and was a good way to place emphasis on that sort of location in her novels which is discussed in the text. You could argue though that it is POV in imagining what a Blyton location might look like so I agree it should probably be removed. If we weren't so restrictive as a source over copyright obviously we'd have the cover of the Kirrin Island Famous Five book instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "They continue to be very popular among children in the Commonwealth nations too such as Malta, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Australia but also in Japan and the former Yugoslavia and around the world" is a very awkward sentence—if she's popular around the world why single out Japan and Yugoslavia, and why list the Commonwealth countries?
Because Japan and Yugoslavia aren't commonwealth nations and I thought it was worth mentioning the commonwealth nations which her works are popular in. I'll split the sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Mordaciously"? I understand (while disagreeing with) the thinking behind using obscure words to avoid repetition and using unfamiliar terminology to encourage the reader to learn new words, but doing so on an article likely to be read overwhelmingly by children and people for whom English isn't a first language, especially when there are numerous widely-understood synonyms ("caustically", "sarcastically"…) just comes across as pretentious at best and obnoxious at worst.
    I've never been happy with "mordaciously", so I'll let Dr. Blofeld respond to that. Eric Corbett 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I thought it was a perfect word to describe the critic. Oxford dictionary defines it and it seems to be an accurate description. Does expanding one's vocabulary make one pretentious? Should we write the whole article in simple English then because the readership might be young children? "Scathing" I suppose you could use instead but there is something onomatopoeic which I liked which implies "biting" or "stinging". I hadn't realized it would be considered problematic to use a word in the Oxford dictionary. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I suspect that "mordaciously" is probably one level too far in obscurity to be the best choice for an article that will likely have a younger than average readership as well as one where English is often not the reader's first language. We are urged in MOS:JARGON to "not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" and that's probably just as true here. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • HarperCollins is an American company founded in 1989 by Rupert Murdoch as a single corporate identity for the various publishing houses News Corporation had acquired over the years—they couldn't possibly have been Blyton's publisher in 1961. Their predecessor Harper & Brothers did exist, but was an American magazine publisher and very unlikely to have been publishing children's books in the UK. Was it actually William Collins, Sons of Glasgow?
    You're right, it was William Collins. Now fixed. Eric Corbett 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted yup. I believe the source is referring to the company as it is called now, they merged in 1990.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that "in an age marked by the invasion of American culture, Blyton's works continued to be considered by many as a "savoury" alternative to the likes of Disney and comics, which Blyton was able to exploit as criticism mounted" does reflect what's said in the source, but verifiability not truth is no longer with us and this is a highly dubious claim, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone slaps an {{who}} tag after "by many". The great surges in the influence of American culture came between the birth of motion pictures and the end of World War II and following the introduction of satellite and cable TV from the late 1980s, and there was no particularly strong US influence on British culture in the 1950s and early 1960s (the period under discussion)—if anything, this was the golden age of uniquely British culture, from skiffle to Carry On Sergeant to Ealing comedy to Listen With Mother. The idea of popular culture being an either/or choice between Noddy and the Famous Five or Jerry Lee Lewis and Tales from the Crypt (which is essentially the claim being made in the source) is such an extraordinary claim, it needs an extraordinarily good source.
 – iridescent 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, and I think the source is a reliable one. I remember myself being fascinated by Superman comics in the late '50s for instance. Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Britain did have a strong cultural identity in the 50s and 60s true, but it's hard to think that people like Elvis didn't have an influence on people like Cliff Richard and the Beatles and British music etc. I watch a lot of films from that period, British and American and I often detect a strong American influence in British films with hairstyles, music and youth culture. The source I believe discusses the invasion of Mickey Mouse and others. We should probably avoid narrow statements though I agree but as Eric says, the source seems credible..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Only anecdotal, but my recollection agrees with Eric here - the 1950s for me were the heyday of Superman and Batman in DC comics; Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels as the Lone Ranger and Tonto; and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr in 77 Sunset Strip. They had a much more profound cultural impact on my youth than The Famous Five ever did to a working-class kid in Tipton. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try and work through them as time permits. Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments from Stfg
  • Last sentence of 1st para: dangling modifier. Child Whispers isn't best remembered for the Noddy character etc, of course.
    Of course it isn't, and that sentence doesn't say that it is. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's dangling, whatever you think it says. --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    No, it's not. Eric Corbett 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    My view of such "rules" is that their purpose is to remove ambiguity, much like the "rules" of hyphenation. But after some reflection, even though I don't agree with the point being made, as I don't see the ambiguity, I've rewritten the sentences around that area to resolve an issue that I don't think is worth going to war over. Hopefully we can put this to bed now. Eric Corbett 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks. I agree there was no ambiguity of meaning, and I was more pushing a "rule" (one which someone else once pushed at me at FAC, by the way). I think your new version reads better anyway. Thanks for doing that and explaining your take on it, which I now understand. --Stfg (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Actually I agree with you, I think the new version does read better, so all's well that ends well. Eric Corbett 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Early life and education, last sentence of 1st para: is "ultimately" doing any work here?
    Possibly not, removed it anyway. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Early writing career, 1st sentence: minor, I know, but why the comma?
    Why not? Seems fine to me. She didn't move to "Chessington and somewhere else", she moved to Chessington. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    "began writing in her spare time" isn't somewhere else, and it isn't an independent clause either. --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I think the sentence is fine as it is. Eric Corbett 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Early writing career, 3rd para: They were followed by The Enid Blyton Book of Fairies, Songs of Gladness and Sports and Games in 1924, and the Book of Brownies in 1926. Someone hearing this read aloud might wonder if "in 1924" and/or "in 1926" are parts of the immediately preceding titles. Maybe instead "... followed in 1924 by ..." and "... and in 1926 by the Book of Brownies." ? Also, some listings give "Book of Brownies" as the complete title; others give it as "The Book of Brownies". I think you should either include the definite article in the title or omit it entirely.
  • New series: 1937–48 section:
  • Blyton's first full-length adventure novel, The Secret Island, featuring the characters of Jack, Mike, Peggy, Nora, and Prince Paul of Baronia was published in 1938. Punctuation a mess: commas not needed after novel and Nora. Comma required after Baronia. In the next sentence, why the comma after Gillian's? Same sentence: "the The Secret series". Next sentence: "the The Circus series". Next sentence: "In 1939, Blyton ..." inconsistent with your punctuation style elsewhere.
  • Still in the same paragraph: is there an Amelia Jane series, as opposed to just Amelia Jane stories. If there is, italicise consistently with the other series, and perhaps it should be added to template {{Enid Blyton}}, which doesn't have it yet. The source for this sentence (currently FN16) doesn't need the paywalled link, as it's available in full here. It doesn't support the statement that Blyton published Naughty Amelia Jane! in 1939, though.
  • Following paragraph: Here you have "the St. Clare's series", whereas in the previous paragraph you italicised "series" as well. In para 4, you have "the Mary Mouse series" with no italics at all. Likewise "the Famous Five series" later on. There are more later still, which I'll not enumerate.
    I don't believe that any of the series names should be italicised, and they should be consistent now. Eric Corbett 17:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 4th paragraph: "provided" is redundant in the first sentence. Enid Blyton's Book of the Year a collection of 129 stories, poems, plays and puzzles published during the 1930s in Teacher's World, with illustrations by Harry Rountree, was also published, with a common nature theme. needs a comma after year. That it was published is a tautology; the point is that this time it came in book form. The word order leaves it unclear where Rountree's illustrations were used: in Teacher's World, in the book or both. The final phrase is misplaced: it is the 129 stories, poems, plays and puzzles that have a common nature theme, not the act of publication.
  • "... a mouse exiled from her mousehole who becomes a maid at a dolls' house". Dangling.
    There's nothing wrong with that sentence, as the preposition "who" can clearly only be referring to the mouse, not to the inanimate mousehole. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Preposition? Anyway, Fair enough.--Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I meant pronoun. Maybe one day I'll be as clever and well educated as you are. Eric Corbett 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Blyton had an interest in biblical narratives, and produced retellings of Old and New Testament stories." -- why the comma?
    The comma is necessary because without it the sentence would be saying that she had two interests: biblical narratives and producing retellings. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    The sentence has "produced", not "producing". How can her two interests be "biblical narratives and produced retellings"? What is a produced retelling, anyway? --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's a fair point; changed it to "retold". Eric Corbett 22:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A number of Blyton's works during this period had seaside themes, among them John Jolly by the Sea (1943) – a picture book intended for younger readers published in a booklet format by Evans Brothers,[29] the books The Secret of Cliff Castle and Smuggler Ben attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943, The Island of Adventure, the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards, and The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House (1945), aside from various novels of The Famous Five series which dealt with the sea and exploration such as Five on a Treasure Island (1942), Five on Kirrin Island Again (1947) and Five Go Down to the Sea (1953). The picture book parenthesis is inconsistently punctuated. The "the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards" is presented as if it were one of the list elements. "the The". Full stop after Family should be a comma. Sea theme stated twice.
  • "In 1945 she published A Book of Magic, The Caravan Family, with illustrations by William Fyffe, and continued to produce picture books ... Where does the list start and end? Shouldn't there be an "and" after Magic?
I'll leave off here. It doesn't seem quite ready. The prose as far as I've seen it seems to me to be below FA standard at present, and imo it needs copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Redacted --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we should withdraw the nomination then? Or are you saying that the bar at FAC has risen so high that only perfect articles should be submitted? Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those. I'm making constructive comments suggesting where the prose could be improved, and saying that the quality of prose I'm seeing here isn't yet professional, much less "brilliant". --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, the prose doesn't have to be brilliant at FAC, that's the whole point. This article has received a peer review AND a GAR, so surely the natural progression would be FAC, no? I admit, the article isn't perfect and neither of the editors assume it so. I think you are being a little harsh at such an early stage. Cassiantotalk 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Continued on talk page.

  • Comments from Paul Austin
  • There are a number of factual errors in the text. One part of the article, for example, refers to "Imogen's death". Imogen is still alive, it's Gillian who is dead. If something as important as this is wrong, what else is?
  • As i mentioned on the talk page, There is no mention of the modernisation of duodecimal money, the changing of foods and drinks to more modern items (the kids in some of the books now drink things like Coca Cola instead of tea), the altering of names that are now offensive (Nigger and Darky in the circus books, unfortunate (Fanny and Dick in the Faraway Tree), or seen as old-fashioned (Mary and Jill in the Adventurous Four). Paul Austin (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's rather unfair to imply the article is full of grave errors purely because the name of the other daughter was there. That sort of thing is very easy to introduce and not always easy to spot. Kudos for spotting it though. Please do mention any of the other factual errors you claim to see. Yes, we could further mention some of the changes, good point. I don't think we need to document every change ever made though. Can you suggest some good sources which document those which you mentioned? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    You claim that there are a "number" of factual errors Paul, yet you quote only one, now corrected. Let's remember that zero is also a number. Eric Corbett 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I have watched the articles progress over the last month or so and I am impressed with what I see now. I don't think the article should be withdrawn as suggested above and with a peer review and GAC under its belt, FAC is the natural progression. I will offer some comments, but at a drip-fed pace owing to real life. Lead will come last.

Early life and education

  • Enid Blyton was born on 11 August 1897 in East Dulwich, London, England, the eldest of three children, to Thomas Carey Blyton (1870–1920), a cutlery salesman, and his wife Theresa Mary Harrison Blyton (1874–1950). -- Rather long. Could this be broken in half?
  • Her younger brothers... -- Whose, Enid or Theresa?
    Enid's, now clarified. Eric Corbett 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For our non geographically minded, and foreign readers, could Beckenham be mentioned next to a more recognisable location (i.e Bromley or Kent etc..)
Added "then in Kent".♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...but was nursed back to health by her father, whom she adored. -- Can we not take the fact she adored her father as a given? Or did their relationship exceed all expectations compared to other daughter/father relationships?
    • A lot of sources indicate that her childhood relationship with her father had a profound impact on her life and career. A lot of people seem to think that she remained the girl who longed for her father as a child all of her life and that a lot of her books reflected a deep desire to return to that period in which she was happy and were in a way therapeutic for her. I think it's pretty important to state it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We say Enid was devastated by Thomas' infidelity and naturally so. But why didn't she attend her "adored" father's funeral? If the affair aggravated their relationship, I think we should say as it answers this question which I inevitably found myself asking at the end of the sentence. I think it is possible to see your parents have an affair, but still adore them afterwards.
    Her brother Hanly has speculated that Blyton didn't attend her father's funeral because she didn't want to have to meet her father's new partner, but she never gave an explanation herself. I might add a note to that effect. Eric Corbett 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • From 1907 to 1915 Enid attended St Christopher's School... -- Why do we refer to her as "Enid"? We then go onto call her Blyton. I prefer the surname, but I think we should at least be consistent.
    I think that was a carry-over from the preceding paragraph, where she's identified as Enid to avoid confusion with the other Blyton family members, but we can can certainly switch to "Blyton" here, which I've done. Eric Corbett 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Enid's mother disapproved of her writing... This could read that her mother disapproved of her own writing. Might I suggest: "Blyton's mother disapproved of her daughters writing..." or similar. We could even get away with a pronoun instead of "Blyton" at the start I reckon.
    Slightly rewritten to address this issue. Eric Corbett 20:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Blyton moved out of the family home to live with her friend Mary Attenborough. She then left Beckenham ... -- Blyton or Attenborough?
Done.
  • She then left Beckenham and stayed with George and Emily Hart at Seckford Hall in Woodbridge in Suffolk... in →in, also a link to Suffolk would possibly be helpful.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • a house whose haunted room... POV. I would insert "allegedly" or "reputed" before haunted. Also, do we use "whose" for an inanimate object? I would have thought this applied to persons only? I note WP:ALLEGED, but feel something should be put in here to avoid the POV. Alternatively, we could blame Blyton and say that she thought it was haunted.
    I've added the word reputedly. As for whose, I think we do use sometimes use that inanimate objects. Eric Corbett 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "kindergarten" an American term? Would we not say pre-school or something?
    • Yes, it seems like it, but the source and others I believe all say kindergarten. Should we really state something other than what the source says to avoid sounding American? I'm not sure. Eric?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Were the authors American? I could be wrong, but "kindergarten" strikes me as either being German or American. When I hear it I think of KinderGarten Cop lol, which makes me think of America. Cassiantotalk 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL. I believe that the British Enid Blyton Society refers to it as kindergarten too! Changed to nursery school though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would it not be better to mention her publishing rebuffs before her success? I'm thinking here: In March that year her first poems were published in Nash's Magazine. Blyton had been rejected by publishers on many occasions...
    Good idea. I've moved a few bits around. Eric Corbett 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would the definite article of "nursery governess" be better? Or was she one of many?
  • Same with "architect Horace Thompson"?
Both have been addressed.

Early writing career

  • On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure. -- What was this? A poem, short story, novel?
    Actually looks like an essay [1] Appendix 2 of the biography. Eric you might respond to that one and confirm what it is. Can you replace the chrono source with Appendix 2 of the Stoney biography also? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It was indeed an essay, and I've replaced the citation with one from Stoney's biography. Eric Corbett 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph is missing a closing citation.
  • Do we know the year of publication of Pictorial Knowledge. Compared to the others, this is the only one lacking.
Well spotted! 1930.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The second from last paragraph is missing a closing citation, as does the final one.

New series: 1937–48

  • Like her The Wishing-Chair series...
  • Missing citation end of first para.
  • The Secret Island, described as a "Robinson Crusoe-style adventure on an island in an English lake" -- Described by who?
  • According to Gillian, the main character was based on a large handmade doll given to her on her third birthday by her mother. -- Who, Gillian or Blyton?
  • During the 1940s Blyton not only proved how prolific she could be as an author, but demonstrated a "marketing, publicity and branding that was far ahead of its time", contributing to her major success during that period. -- The quote written here feels awkward when read with the rest of the sentence. I think the problem here is with the letter "a" just before it. Should it be there?
@Cassianto: Would you be happier with "During the 1940s Blyton became a prolific author, and her major success during this period was accelerated by "marketing, publicity and branding that was far ahead of its time". ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that reads a lot better. Cassiantotalk 12:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The explanation of the pseudonym "Mary Pollock" could be moved to a note. It interrupts the flow, and tells us of a marriage which hasn't been mentioned yet.
I disagree, I think it's important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So popular were they... -- The eleven novels or the two Pollock ones?
  • Many wrote letters of complaint →"Many readers complained"?
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The same year she published The Naughtiest Girl in the School about the exploits of a mischievous schoolgirl, Elizabeth Allen – "The same year she published The Naughtiest Girl in the School which followed the exploits of the mischievous schoolgirl, Elizabeth Allen."?
  • The Twins at St. Clare's, about twins Patricia and Isabel O'Sullivan. – Could we avoid the repetition of "twins"?
  • In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, about a half-brownie and half-human character who had the ability to make himself invisible
Yes, but I think it should be "has" rather than "had" when referring to a book or film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, about a half-brownie and half-human character with the ability to make himself invisible, with illustrations provided by Dorothy M. Wheeler,[22] who also worked on Five O'Clock Tales, released in the same year. -- I feel that this could be broken up. "In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, which featured a half-brownie and half-human character who had the ability to make himself invisible. The book featured illustrations by Dorothy M. Wheeler, who also worked on Five O'Clock Tales, released in the same year."
Agreed, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Its popularity →"The series' popularity"?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This para is lacking a closing citation.
  • A number of Blyton's works during this period had seaside themes, among them John Jolly by the Sea (1943) – a picture book intended for younger readers published in a booklet format by Evans Brothers,[28] the books The Secret of Cliff Castle and Smuggler Ben attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943, The Island of Adventure, the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards, and The Brown Family. – Again, this seems an overly long sentence for comfortable reading.
  • The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House (1945), as well as various novels of The Famous Five series dealing with the sea and exploration, such as Five on a Treasure Island (1942), Five on Kirrin Island Again (1947) and Five Go Down to the Sea (1953). – just doesn't make sense. This needs rewriting or t may be a case of sorting the punctuation. Is the lurking full stop between "family" and "London", there intentionally?
  • Lack of closing citation.
  • Capitalising on her success, with a loyal and ever-growing readership, Blyton managed to produce a new edition of many of her series -- are missing an apostrophe on "series"?
    Why do you think there ought to be an apostrophe on "series"? Eric Corbett 12:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Are we not talking of more than one series? "Many" indicates that we are. Or is "many" meaning each individual book within a series? If the former, are we are missing the plural form of series? (not sure which is correct: series' or series's). Cassiantotalk 12:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sounds like a variation on the grocer's apostrophe to me. Eric Corbett 13:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    We had this problem on Peter Sellers if you remember Doc. I know now, cheers. Cassiantotalk 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It is. Here is the OED entry for series. It states: "Plural unchanged, (rare) serieses". --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • By 1948 Blyton had reached her seventh The Famous Five novel – "By 1948 Blyton had written her seventh novel in the The Famous Five series"?

All for the moment. This is shaping up to be a good read! Cassiantotalk 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cass for the positive words, comments and time you've put in here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Comments by J Milburn

  • "Some libraries and schools banned her works, which the BBC had refused to broadcast since the 1930s because of their perceived lack of literary merit." The tense here leaves me wondering when precisely the BBC refused to broadcast. Do they still refuse?
    Note f explains that Blyton submitted her first proposal to the BBC in 1936, but I've clarified in the lead that the BBC's ban was lifted in the 1950s. Eric Corbett 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Are Saturday Westminster Review or Home Weekly worth redlinks? What is On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure? If an essay or poem (or even short story) it should probably be in speech marks rater than italics- either way, it would be good to clarify.
    I think I went through and created a few missing articles and concluded that it wasn't worth linking them before I couldn't find anything substantial about them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    We've now clarified that "On the Popular Fallacy ..." was an essay, and changed the formatting accordingly. Eric Corbett 12:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:ChildWhispersEnidBlyton.jpg- A tedious point, but this probably isn't PD in the UK- if it was first published here, it'll need to be uploaded locally and deleted from Commons. While PD in the US, which is all that's needed for enwp, Commons needs it to be PD in the source country too.
  • There's nothing particularly controversial that I can see, but I am struck by some paragraphs ending without citations (though they have citations within them).
  • "and Heyo, Brer Rabbit![18] In 1939 Blyton published her initial book in the Amelia Jane series, Naughty Amelia Jane!." Inconsistency- if the title ends in an exclamation point, do you follow with a full stop or not?
    On reflection I think there ought not to be a full stop at the end of that sentence, so I've removed it. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "was also the first in her boarding school story genre of books" Is it her genre? How about "also the first of her..."
    Good idea, done. Eric Corbett 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Night The Toys Had A Party"- Per MOS, should probably be "The Night the Toys Had a Party"
    You're almost certainly right, so I've changed it. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the Malory Towers series" Why have you italicised this series name in particular?
    It's just one I missed when I was going through earlier, fixed now. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Sampson, Low, Marston and Company worth a redlink?
  • What's a "strip book"?
Blyton published quite a lot of books which featured comic strips mixed with things like short stories, poetry and other features. I thought strip book was an apt description of such books rather than referring to them as purely comic strips.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a term I've ever heard before- I wasn't really sure what was being referred to. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not finished yet, but I have to dash. I'll take another look soon. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "Blyton was very unwilling to conduct any research or planning before beginning work on a new book, which coupled with the lack of variety in her life[c] according to Druce almost inevitably presented the danger that she might unconsciously, and clearly did, plagiarise the books she had read, including her own.[61]" I found this sentence a little difficult to follow. What are you attributing to Druce?
    All of it I think. I'll dig it out and double check. Eric Corbett 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect that there have been more recent jigsaw puzzles and games. At the very least, there are some video games. Could you perhaps expand on why you've included these particular spinoffs?
  • "In 1938 Blyton and her family moved to a house in Beaconsfield, which named Green Hedges by Blyton's readers following a competition in her magazine." Missed word?
    Indeed, now fixed. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Enid Blyton award, The Enid, was given" I don't think award names need to be italicised
    Neither do I, so the italics have been removed. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • " They continue to be very popular among " "They" meaning "Blyton's books", presumably?
    Yep, slightly rewritten to clarify. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "and that the world in which she was living in with her books was "too important to her to embrace those who intruded on her"." Needs tweaking
    I've rewritten that sentence to paraphrase what the quotation is trying to say a little more elegantly. Eric Corbett 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I was looking at this source because the mention of animal rights seemed slightly out of place, and there seems to be no mention of the swansdown slippers; I'm not sure how much of that paragraph is actually covered in the source. Perhaps other sources have been removed at some point by accident?

A very enjoyable read. I hope my thoughts are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it JM, and thanks for your constructive input here, I'm sure there's many good points to address.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

American football[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about American football or, as we call it in America, football. This is an introductory article on the sport, so it includes all the basics as well as more in-depth coverage. This article includes:

  • A history section, with extensive detail going into the formative days of the sport and its evolution into the top American sport. For comparison to other FA sports articles, this is longer than the history section in the Association football article, and shorter than the one in the Baseball article. The short length relative to the baseball article is primarily due to the broader coverage in the History of American football article, a featured article.
  • An etymology section, which explains why the sport is unambiguously called 'football' in American despite relatively little use of the foot. It also gives common names for the sport in other countries besides the US.
  • A teams and position section, which gives a basic overview of substitution rules, the division of teams into units, and the specialized roles of each player.
  • A rules section, which gives a basic overview of the fundamentals of the game: scoring, field dimensions, timekeeping, advancing the ball, kicking, and officiating.
  • A leagues and tournaments section, which covers the major American leagues, minor American leagues, and international competition. It also gives an overview of the sport's Olympic history and the main obstacles to Olympic entry (namely, lack of international participation and large team sizes).
  • A safety section, covering common health risks and protective measures that have been made to try and combat them.
  • A section on variations (such as Arena football and amateur play) and related sports (namely, Canadian football).

Overall, it provides a basic but comprehensive overview of the sport. I think it meets all criteria, and is of similar or better quality than our other FA sports articles. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I would expect to find information about the impact of football on U.S. culture and society, just like in baseball#Popularity and cultural impact. Granted that it's not on the same "apple pie"-level as baseball as a cultural icon, but it's still pretty darned American. Just the hullabaloo surrounding the Super Bowl seems like it would deserve its own paragraph. Peter Isotalo 15:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've begun work on this section now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Oppose at this time per concerns about completeness, source reliability, neutrality, and cleanliness. These issues can be fixed, in which case I'll give my support if nothing else arises, but it won't be too easy and I really would not feel comfortable with the article passing as is.

  • Elaborate a little on what rugby is like and its ancestral similarities to American football.
  • "Teams and positions" contains an awfully high number of subheaders. I'd merge the level-4 headers into the level-3 ones, considering how short they are.
  • In fact, I think you could probably stick them all under the simple level-2 header, if you wanted, and bullet each of them as is done in "Offices and fouls". Either way, pick something as it looks cluttered as is.
  • For the time being, I have simply removed the level-4 headers. I'll see if I can do anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's fine. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise, Merriam-Webster is probably not a reliable source for information about those sub-strains of the game. I'd replace it with an exhaustive source about the history of the game, so that another complaint of mine about the coverage of these versions of football can be addressed:
  • It's too brief.
  • How so? I'll note that the baseball article hardly mentions any variant sports like softball, and soccer only devotes a few paragraphs to it. Aside from Canadian football (which has a rather large section), variants like arena football and indoor football are basically the same game with a smaller playing field (and a few rule changes to fit that), and casual variants have rules that are different from person to person. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, that's fair. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Other sources whose contextual reliability/appropriateness I question:
  • Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
  • How is this unreliable, especially for the only thing it is used to cite (the shape of the ball)? Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely you can find a better alternative if it's so obvious? And why isn't the shape or structure of the ball mentioned anywhere else in the article? Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oxford Dictionaries Online
  • Changed source to NPR. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online
  • I've changed this to now only cite that American and Canadian football are both considered to be forms of gridiron football. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sports Know How
  • Not sure how that got there, removed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • LiveStrong.com
  • Removed; the bit of information is obvious and has been removed, and for some reason the website - despite having the right url - is linking to an entirely different page now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Section ordering is a little weird; Safety should probably go between Rules and Leagues and tournaments.
  • In Popularity and cultural impact, I'd mention something about football, despite its massive popularity, never having made it to the Olympics besides its "demonstration", whatever that means.
  • "American football is by far the most popular sport" - Debatable. By which metrics is it the most popular sport? If none are given in the source, frame it as the author's opinion.
  • Similarly: "is among the biggest club sporting events in the world" - How so?
  • "professional and college football were the first and third most popular sports" - What was second?
  • Switch the ordering of the UK/other European countries in "Popularity and cultural impact"; it creates a strange contrast to go right from the stigma in the UK to "The sport is also played in..."
  • That whole section should be expanded with information about the sport's evolving popularity in the US over time. The US should definitely have its own paragraph (if not 2+), moreover.
  • Expound on American football's popularity in Japan. I didn't even realize it was a professional sport there; surely there's more to say.

I'll keep this FAC on my watchlist. Tezero (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Kronan (ship)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 14:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since the last one, but this is my sixth FAC so far. This is a quite natural continuation of my interest in naval history and maritime archaeology which began with Vasa (ship) and continued with Mary Rose (both FAs). Kronan is not as well-known and publicized as either Vasa or Mary Rose, but it is in many ways quite similar: an important and prestigious warship that sank tragically, but which has provided valuable historical evidence to scholars today. This article is rather shorter than the ones on the other two ships, but I see that as a natural consequence of lesser notability and that there and less detailed sources.

The article is currently a GA (reviewed by Ealdgyth) and has recently gone through a peer review with valuable input from Dank, Andejons, ÄDA - DÄP.

Peter Isotalo 14:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments with more to come
    • "Only a few months after the peace of 1658, Swedish King Charles X declared war against once more in an attempt to end Denmark's position as an independent state." – against who? (Denmark, I assume) Why did he do so? The move seems pretty politically inept. Also, the link goes to a French king.
    • "In the early 1670s, Sweden was governed by a regency council that was internally weak and had difficulties asserting Swedish power abroad." ... so Charles died? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Rewrote[2] the background. I think that should address it. Peter Isotalo 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that I still think the background section has some misplaced emphasis on Charles X Gustafs Danish wars. It would be more valuable with a paragraph on the state on the Swedish fleet at that time. I'm also not sure if the regency had so much trouble "asserting Swedish power abroad"; the Triple Alliance (1668) was rather an example of the opposite. The Council was weakened because of a conflict between those who wanted exactly that kind of "peace-keeping" politics, and those who preferred to have a strong ally like France, which could pay subsidies to cover holes in the budget.
  • Andejons (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I went back to the Rystad and reworked the background (diff in reply above). I tried to put the wars into a wider context (along with the Torstenson War) and I focused on the foreign policies. I'll work on some more details about the fleet next. Peter Isotalo 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Much better! Andejons (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • And here's a paragraph on the navy.[3] Peter Isotalo 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
          • The new paragraph is good, but I'd like to see a year for which it is valid. The point about naval stores is somewhat surprising, since Sweden controlled a lot of the trade of at least some necessities like tar and hemp. Also, the note about the old Swedish ships seems to contradict the earlier note about the extensive building programme. Andejons (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Year added, fixed over-reading of source. I kinda assumed it was an issue with stores, but it was really just crappy maintenance. And the building program was in motion, but the Danes were simply better at it. Peter Isotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comments

  • A well researched article - I enjoyed reading it.
  • "Golabiewski Lannby, Monica, (1985) The goldtreasure from the royal ship Kronan at the Kalmar County Museum." - if an English work, I believe the MOS would have the title capitalised, e.g. "The Goldtreasure from the Royal Ship Kronan..." Same for "Franzén, Anders, HMS Kronan : the search for a great 17th century Swedish warship "
  • I've some concerns over the copyright on the pictures of the models in the museum. One of these is File:Ship of the line.JPG - assuming that the model is in Sweden, I don't think that this is covered by Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, which only covers public art outdoors (according to the Commons website here), and so would still be under copyright by the original artist/modeller. I think File:Kalmar museum Vrakplatsen.JPG would have similar issues. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! I enjoyed writing it. :-)
  • I actually think that this is the way the title is written, but I don't mind standardizing it.
  • I've actually thought about images of museum models from the perspective, but I've left the issue alone. To me it seems like a very typical "never going to be a problem unless you actually ask for permission"-kinda issue. Do you know of any precedents?
Peter Isotalo 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In the UK, it's not normally a problem, since the FoP rules are different (a permanent model of a ship on display inside a museum is covered by our FoP). In Sweden, though, it does appear to be different. I guess you've got two issues here. One is the question of "how likely is the museum to take you to court?"; I'm not a lawyer, so don't treat this as legal advice (!), but my guess is that a typical museum is unlikely to pursue you over such a picture, unless you started to exploit it commercially etc. The second question are the Commons rules on images, which are pretty clear about the image having to be free for use in both the US and (in this case) Sweden - and these don't seem to be free in either, as the US doesn't have FoP for these sorts of models as far as I'm aware. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
*whine* Couldn't we just pretend we like everything is alright...? :-/ I know you're perfectly right, though, so I'll just remove the pics for now. I'll leave it to someone else to settle the issue over at Commons.
Peter Isotalo 19:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I know how you feel... the arguments over what to do with UK sourced photographs that are valid FoP in the UK, but not in the US, is still rolling on... :( If you want any help in trying to produce a free diagram of the ship, though, I'm happy to help with Inkscape etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A diagram would be... well... awesome sauce! I possess no skills in the graphics department.
Peter Isotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you know if there is an ideal cross-section diagram out there for the raw data? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some disagreement between infobox and cited text - for example, check date construction began. Other details that appear only in the infobox are unsourced
  • "it took until 31 July 1668 before her hull was launched" - source?
  • Why do the Kronanprojektet refs appear in the middle of the "E" in the otherwise-alphabetical reflist?
  • FN2: formatting, and why use a full rather than shortened cite here?
  • Missing bibliographic info for Soop 2007, Johansson 1993
  • FN39: which Einarsson 2005?
  • Isacsson or Isacson? Ericson or Ericsson Wolfe? Gainsford & Jonsson or Johansson? Is Golabiewski Lannby 1985 or 1988? Please check for accuracy and consistency throughout refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think this should fix the lot. Glete (2002) is full because it's really just further reading. I don't think it really belongs in the reference list. And thanks! Peter Isotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Nuthatch[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Eurasian Nuthatch is the most widespread of its family, breeding from Great Britain to Japan. It is an inveterate hoarder of seeds and nuts, and the female is a dab hand at customising the entrance to the nest cavity by plastering it to get the hole to the right size Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Inveterate" is a word I'd like to use more than I do.

  • "particularly caterpillar and beetles" should be "caterpillar and beetle" or "caterpillars and beetles", surely?
doh... fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Does the superspecies have a name?
Not that I know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What does the Ancient Greek term translate to?
"nuthatch", clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are 21 or 22 subspecies" Or 23, maybe. Perhaps "There are over 20 subspecies, but the precise number is disputed. These taxa can be..."
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "usually with a loud, sharp dwip usually repeated twice" Repetition
Varied Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "distinctive S. e. arctica is said to be distinctly different" Repetition
Varied Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the maximum known age is 12 years 11 months" Where was this one?
The UK apparently, fixed with new ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "eating man-made food" Not gender neutral- synthetic? Artificial?
I don't like those, human-made Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Hoarding is a long-term strategy, stored food items only being consumed when fresh food was hard to find, sometimes up to three months after caching." Tense shift (see following sentences, too)
fixed both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Beech mast crops vary widely from year to year. Where beech is important, adult survival rates are largely unaffected by the availability of mast, but juvenile autumn survival is locally reduced in poor years by starvation or emigration.[20] Similar results were found where common hazel was the prevalent tree species.[26]" I don't know what this means
Rephrased for greater clarity (?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "A Swedish study showed that 6.2% of the Nuthatch nests in their study area were raided by predators. The perpetrators were not identified, but the main single predator of tit nests in the same study was the Great Spotted Woodpecker." Reference?
Oops, I'd split the sentence off from its ref, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Common Starlings will take over nuthatch nest holes" Are you referring to the Nuthatch or nuthatches generally? Same later in the paragraph
Fixed both
  • "A Belgian study indicated that the problem appears not to be severe enough to require culling of the parakeets." I don't like "require". How about "Ornithologists conducting a 2010 Belgian study suggested that the problem was not so severe as to warrant culling of the parakeets."
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Six species of mites of the genus Ptilonyssus have been found in the Eurasian Nuthatch's nasal cavities, and one was first formally identified in this bird.[37] Intestinal worms include the nematodes Tridentocapillaria parusi and Pterothominx longifilla." Worth listing the mites? Worth redlinking the nematodes? Nothing wrong with redlinks!
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "have between 10,000–100,000 breeding pairs." How about "have between 10,000 and 100,000 breeding pairs." or "have 10,000–100,000 breeding pairs."?
"and" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The nuthatch is common throughout" Again- Nuthatch?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What's a "cone crop"?
clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a strong article. I'm musing a little about the subspecies information; I'm wondering if a slightly more detailed table would be needed... J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is, "slightly" isn't really an option. I made the conscious decision to deal only with the ssp groups to avoid a very long table (which nobody is going to read), listing the minor differences between the 20+ forms and obscuring the three groups. It seems too much information to me. I could easily do it if it is an issue, but it wouldn't be my choice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your review and comments I thought I wouldn't get away without red links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Another way to do the subspecies would be to have a list article; List of Eurasian Nuthatch subspecies. That way, you could keep the minimal data in this article, but then include other information (date, describing author, range and minor physical differences) in the other one; the list could be split based on subspecies group, with a lead giving basic information about the species as a whole and greater information about the taxonomy. A few hours (and a lot of fiddling with tables...) and you could have a FLC. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, leave that with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, as long as nothing else comes up (and on the condition the source and image checks come back OK). J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Final image caption should not end in period
  • Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for image review, full stop removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Passing comment Looks pretty good. I did find this:

  • "a family of similar-looking birds with short tails and wings, a compact body and a longish pointed bill." The article needs to choose singular or plural and stick to it (although wings plural is OK, since each bird has two :-)). Eg "a family of similar-looking birds with short tails and wings, compact bodies and longish pointed bills." or "a family of similar-looking birds that have a short tail and wings, a compact body and a longish pointed bill." I think the latter sounds odd, so would go with the former. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "has been considered conspecific with all of these in the past". Does this mean, rather: "has in the past been considered conspecific with all of these"? In other words, are we talking about the evolutionary past (the former wording), or in past research papers (the latter, which I am guessing is what was intended)? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 31 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  05:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the third-longest highway in the state of Michigan. Running for over 350 miles, US 31 parallels the Lake Michigan shoreline in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The highway's current designation dates back to 1926, and like other highways in the state, it was partially converted into a freeway. One segment of freeway built for US 31 has been sitting unused for over a decade now, waiting for the final piece to be built. That section was delayed for many years over a butterfly, but now it's a matter of funding the project. Imzadi 1979  05:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review:
  1. File:US 31.svg - PD-MUTCD
  2. File:US 31 (MI) map.svg - CC-BY-SA-3.0, has GIS data
  3. File:1-196 BLACK RIVER BRIDGE SOUTH HAVEN.jpg - PD-user
  4. File:US Route 31 Winston Road (Michigan).jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  5. File:US 31, Manistee, Michigan.jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  6. File:Grandview Parkway Traverse City.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  7. File:US31 Sign Looking North Bay View Michigan.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  8. File:Alanson Michigan Downtown 2 US31.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  9. File:Michigan's Indian trails.png - PD US not renewed, published in 1959
  10. File:US 31 in 1936.png - PD US no notice, published in 1936
  11. File:US Route 31 Oceana Drive (Michigan).jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  12. File:Mitchell's Satyr butterfly.jpg - CC-BY-3.0, OTRS permission confirmed
  13. File:Lake Michigan Circle Tour.svg - CC-Zero, OTRS permission confirmed
  14. File:Charlevoix II.JPG - CC-BY-3.0
  15. Captions are fine.
  • Support - Images check out and prose meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Larry Doby[edit]

Nominator(s): Zepppep, Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Even those who aren't baseball fans know the story of Jackie Robinson, the saga of the first African-American to play in the major leagues. This article is on the second African-American to play in the major leagues, one who had to endure the same hardships as Robinson, yet has largely been forgotten, unfairly so given that both players were Hall of Famers. Larry Doby's career was one of perseverance and determination, not to mention a good number of home runs.

As for why I'm nomming it, after it became a GA, I did multiple top-to bottom rewrites on it in an attempt to bring it here and get it on the main page one day. I believe now it's as good as it will like ever be, and it now meets all FA criteria. Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wizardman. 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, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed that one, looking through the rest of the article since there may be more instances like that. Wizardman 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review - All images are used appropriately, and the first two (the baseball cards) are in the public domain per the Library of Congress, as the copyright was not renewed. The last image is a self-created image by User:Silent Wind of Doom, and is appropriately licensed. Check an image review off the list. Go Phightins! 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Silverplate[edit]

Nominator(s): Reedmalloy (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is another in the Manhattan Project series. Originally the name for the aircraft modification project for the B-29 Superfortress bomber to enable it to drop an atomic weapon, Silverplate eventually came to identify the training and operational aspects of the program as well. The article passed Good Article and A class reviews last year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bockcar at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. Note the tail marking.
  • For one brief, happy, moment I thought it might be on actual silver plate, but even as I clicked, I knew my hopes were doomed. Oh well, at least it's not a racehorse. The only thing I'll say is that the arrow-in-circle "play" icon on the lead pic looks as though it's a logo on the plane's tail, which I thought it was at first. If it can be moved, that would be better. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed at ACR, and think it meets the standards for FA. Even if it's not a racehorse... ;) NB: I thought it was a logo on the tail, like the picture below it? If it's not supposed to be a logo, I'm happy to have a go at digitally removing it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I think you're right. It doesn't play a video for sure! Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Saltwell Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A second attempt at FAC for a beautiful Victorian park. The article is ready; it just needs the support of the community. I'm here to answer any queries raised... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I've got some concerns here, especially regarding referencing. Contrary to my habits, I've not closely audited reference formatting.

  • Perhaps most importantly, a substantial amount of this article is sourced to references that I'm not sure are independent, third-party sources. Carlton's book, published by the Gateshead Corporation. The Gateshead Council, Gateshead Libraries, and NewcastleGateshead websites. None of these appear to be independent sources, and cumulatively, they provide the bulk of the article's citations.
  • The Tyne & Wear SiteLines references are all dead links. Is/was this a reliable source?
  • Why is this a reliable source?
  • Why is this a reliable source, as it appears to be largely operated and edited by a single person?
  • The North East Film Archive reference is a dead link.
  • Why was the list of events discussed chosen for inclusion? Many of them seem like run-of-the-mill activities that would not be unusual for any park of comparable size, and are cited largely to the local newspaper. Things like the Field of Remembrance that received national attention are one thing, but when the only coverage is in one or two Newcastle upon Tyne dailies...
  • The article's structure has some flaws. For example, there's a war memorial introduced in "Design and layout" that's actually never explicitly identified; I was able to puzzle out that it was the Boer War memorial only after reading the following section.
  • Prose is also a concern. I'm not attempting a comprehensive prose review at this time (nor is it my strong suit), but a few sentences stood out even on a quick read:
    • "This has been in situ since a tender to install a 4 acres (1.6 ha) lake with an island in the centre was accepted in August 1880."
    • "The park is also host to three well-used bowling greens, replete with their own pavilion (the Avenue Green Pavilion) and a rose garden."

On the whole, I have to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Vannevar Bush[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an engineer, inventor and science administrator, who was the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II. Part of a series of articles on the Manhattan Project. He is also known for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, which introduced the concept that we now know as the hyperlink. Article passed GA and A class reviews back in 2012, but it now takes two years to bring an article to FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. "His office was considered one of the key factors in winning the war" becomes clearer as the reader moves through the article, but I'm not sure if the meaning is clear in the lead. Also, in American English, if I say I'm going to meet you for lunch, it's clear that I'm not saying "I'll encounter you for the first time" (though I would be!), but "Lincoln met Emerson in Washington in February 1862" means that's the first time they met. Someone has gone through changing every "met with" to "met", and that changes the meaning, or at the very least makes the meaning ambiguous. My understanding is that the rules are different in BritEng, which adds a complication, but not a sufficient complication to justify those edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be! The Wiktionary says that In the sense "come face to face with someone by arrangement", meet is sometimes used with the preposition with in American English. This is also true is AusEng, but here "meet with" means to have a formal meeting — one of those meetings where there is an agenda and minutes. Looking through the change history reveals that change was made by an IP editor from Norway in April 2013. I've reversed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone wanted a reference for the pronunciation of Bush's first name. I've never heard of that being questioned before. I'm taking the word of the phonologists that the symbols are correct. However, I do know how it is pronounced. You can hear it straight from the man himself through one of the article's external links, thanks to a technology that lets us listen to dead people. (Wind through to the 13-minute mark.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Truman caption should not end in a period
  • File:DA_Cambridge_c1937.jpg: this is missing a US PD tag, but I'm also concerned about the life+70 tag - who created the image, and what was his/her date of death?
  • File:Lawrence_Compton_Bush_Conant_Compton_Loomis_83d40m_March_1940_meeting_UCB.JPG: the given source link redirects here - why?
  • File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Kepler-solar-system-2.gif: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Removed.
  2. I have no idea. WP:CONEXCEPT applies here. We are not allowed to query decisions made on Commons.
  3. The site imglib.lbl.gov no longer exists. There's a feature that displays a custom site for a 404 error. So instead of getting ugly 404s, we now get helpful spam. smile
  4. Added a link to another usage. It seems that Wayback is forbidden from archiving the site.
  5. Added a US PD tag.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel S. Schanck Observatory[edit]

Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first astronomical observatory built at Rutgers College (now Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey). A small article I started about a small building most students at Rutgers never really learn much about--it's comprehensive, well-sourced, and after a DYK appearance and GA review, FAC is the next logical step. Thanks, in advance, for your comments and suggestions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Atenes,_torre_dels_vents.JPG: as Greece does not have freedom of panorama, the image description page must include a licensing tag for the building as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Murder[edit]

Nominator(s): Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Murder is a side-scrolling action role-playing-beat 'em up video game for the XBLA on the Xbox 360. After I began writing the game, I reached out to the studio and they released sixteen images, which is awesome. This is my first FAC, and it's taken me a while to get good enough at writing articles to feel comfortable taking this step... so please be merciful. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sven Manguard. 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, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead
    • Fixed, thanks. -Sven
  • FN12: author name is inverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Normally yes, although in those cases I thought that the citation was fine where it was. Nonetheless, I've made the modifications. -Sven


  • I don't have much time, but I'd be happy to review this over a future weekend if you want the input (just send me a {{ping}}). I do a full review and copyedit (if it is worth doing), image checks, and spot source checks, but I review for fairly high 1a prose quality: fair warning. czar  15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Poltava (1894)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC) and Buggie111 (talk)

Poltava was one of five Russian battleships captured and put into service by the Imperial Japanese Navy after the Russo-Japanese War. She was sunk by land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur in shallow water that allow the Japanese to refloat and repair her. Her only combat during World War I was during the siege of the German-owned port of Tsingtao. The Russians bought her back in 1916 and she had little to do in the White Sea in 1917–18. Her crew declared for the Bolsheviks in October, but they must have been pretty apathetic as the ship made no resistance when the British intervened in the early stages of the Russian Civil War in 1918. No longer seaworthy, they used her as a prison hulk before abandoning her in 1919 when they left North Russia. The Bolsheviks recaptured her in 1920, but just scrapped her in 1924. Buggie111 did the original work several years ago and I've expanded it with material from new sources. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and should be in pretty good shape. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Russian_battleship_Poltava.jpg needs source, author date of death, and US PD tag. Same with File:Russian_Battleship_Poltava_sunk_in_Port_Arthur.jpg
    • First image replaced with a Swedish postcard.
  • File:Tango1908-1909.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for checking these out so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support

Description
  • "Poltava, however, reached a top speed of 16.29 knots (30.17 km/h; 18.75 mph) from 11,213 indicated horsepower (8,362 kW) during her sea trials. " I'm not sure the "however" is justified, a difference of .29 knots doesn't seem worth it. Perhaps "though"
  • Agreed, although rephrased a bit differently.
Construction
  • Is there any known reason for the delay between constructions and sea trials? Four years seems a bit long.
  • Russian shipyards were very inefficient during this time.
  • "to reduce their draft enough" is it draft or drafts under this situation?
  • I think it could go either way, but I also think that it should technically be plural.
Port Arthur
  • A further issue was the Russian failure to withdraw its troops from Manchuria in October 1903." Why was this a failure and why the specific month? They presumably did not withdraw their troops in September or November either. Were they obliged to do so, or had they promised?
  • Promised.
  • "The ship participated in the action of 13 April …" The two clauses stating that Poltova, and Petropavlovsk each participated seems confusing and should more logically be combined into one.
  • See how it reads now.
More later.Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll look forward to more helpful comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Resuming
  • "landed many of her 47 mm and 37 mm guns to reinforce the landward defenses " I would say "shore defenses" or similar to avoid the repetition.
  • "sortied in an attempt to escape to Vladivostok in the morning, around 07:00" I would rearrange to avoid the impression that "Vladivostok" and "morning" are related.
I read through the rest of it and didn't have anything, other than a couple of things I made directly. I see no reason in dragging out the inevitable.
Support. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Done and thanks for your quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments - I guess a few things can be overlooked even by the same reviewer ;)

  • A duplicate link weaseled its way into the lead since I reviewed it at ACR
  • It might be good to make clear that the abortive sortie to Vladivostok in June ended without combat
  • "They were intercepted by the Japanese fleet in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea at 12:55." - this sounds like somebody coined the name "Battle of the Yellow Sea" at 12:55 - perhaps better to rework it as "The Japanese fleet intercepted the Russian ships at 12:55 in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea" (and as a bonus, it drops the passive voice).
    • Excellent idea.
  • Linking "battleship" to Russian battleship Poltava (1911) might be a little WP:EGGy. Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Is it worth linking to the later ship at all? I think that the link to dreadnought is worth retaining, but I'm not sure that the link to the actual ship is? Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I usually do, especially if there's a significant connection between the naming of the vessels (as with my current FAC and the two subsequent cruisers). I don't generally link a later ship if there was no particular connection (for instance, with Dresden and Dresden) but I'd say that since this Poltava couldn't have her original name back because of the new Poltava, that's significant enough to warrant a link. You might simply change it to "given to the new dreadnought battleship Poltava so Tango was renamed..." That will also separate the links for dreadnought Poltava, which I know some people don't like. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Laundry Service[edit]

Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Colombian record artist Shakira's fifth studio album and first English-language studio effort. A monumental point in her career and a highly successful album, I have worked on the article for quite a long time. It received an instant pass for good article, and a few users have recommended me to nominate it for FA. I hope the article is worthy enough. I will try to address issues as soon as they are put forward. Thanks! WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • One external link to correct.
  • Perhaps "Background" and "recording" could be merged into a "Background and recording" since the latter section is a little short.
  • I would recommend that "Music and lyrics" is renamed "Composition".
  • I suggest moving "Accolades" in between "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance".
  • Can you organize the "Personnel" section into two columns?
  • I would replace the couple instances of Nielsen Business Media in the references, since it appears that Prometheus Global Media is the most commonly-listed publisher for Billboard throughout the article.
The Nielsens were added by a bot. They weren't supposed to be there in the first place --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the hard work you've put into the article has certainly paid off! Aside from these minor structural/formatting comments, I have no other issues to raise, and I am very happy to give my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have addressed the issues. Much appreciated --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: WonderBoy1998. 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, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose:I see you've put a lot of work into the article. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it's not quite up to FA standards. The writing is not quite brilliant or interesting and far from neutral. All these biased fancruft remarks like "huge success", "huge international success", "performed well", "became hits", "performed moderately". We must only document facts and appropriate critical commentary. I find too many of these throughout the article. Also, beware of awkward wording like "a few critics praised Shakira's vocal talent". Overall, I suggest hooking up with a third-party editor who can fine-tooth comb all the unintentional praises. Good luck and I'll keep watch for improvements.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 03:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have made some changes. However, I must say that I believe the usage of words like "crossover success" and "international success" is sufficiently backed by the charting information. Moreover, the former just doesn't refer to chart success but rather emphasises on the fact that the album enabled Shakira to enter the market successfully, which too is taken from the sources. Thanks for your input --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Morchella rufobrunnea[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Morchella rufobrunnea is a choice edible fungus, and one of the few morel species that has been successfully cultivated. The article is fairly short, but I think is comprehensive for a species that was "officially" described only in 1998. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I love seeing your mushroom articles, and I'm happy to lend a hand reviewing this one. I normally focus on reference minutiae, but with how many of these you've written, I know I'd be in for a short review if that's all I did, so I'll aim for a more comprehensive one:

  • I know "new to science" is a term of art, and all, but it is probably jarring to the lay reader here, since it wasn't exactly discovered in 1998 so much as differentiated. Doubly so since the lead mentions a cultivation patent that was seemingly issued before anyone knew the mushroom existed! (Yes, obviously, that's not really how it worked, but it does rather read that way.)
  • Perhaps re-order the Taxonomy section likewise? Introduce the 1986 mentions of western deliciosa first, then walk through the sequence of establishing rufobrunnea in 1998 and moving the existing mushrooms over to the new name?
  • "North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa have since been divided into two distinct species, Morchella diminutiva and M. virginiana." Should that say "Other North American morels..." since rufobrunnea started its taxonomic voyage there also?
  • Any details on what form of molecular analysis was used? I feel like I'm being picky asking, but I know it's been included in several other mushroom FAs (and was specifically requested by someone during mine).
  • I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know your clades aren't consistently capitalized: Esculenta clade vs. Elata Clade. Later, you have "Blushing Clade" in caps, with quotes, and I'm not sure what the distinction is there, either.
  • Anything comment on what the black granules are? Or are they just a thing it does?
  • Link hyphae?
  • Link sclerotia under Description (instead of first linking it down in Cultivation)?
  • Anything describe characteristics that distinguish rufobrunnea from the (now) two other species that all used to be part of North American deliciosa for the Similar Species section?
  • Link pre-apothecia to something?
  • You give a development process with four steps, then one with five steps. I assume the difference is the conditions involved, but it makes the section less than clear overall.
  • References and reference formatting look pretty solid. Should the Stamets ref read "3rd ed." instead of "3 ed."? (I'm contractually obligated to find a nit to pick in reference formatting...).

Can't quite endorse promotion yet, but I have no doubts that the article will be there in short order. As always, nice work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn
  • "Its known range was extended a decade later when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States, and in 2009, when it was reported growing in Israel." How about "Its range was later found to be more widely spread, when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States a decade later, and when it was reported growing in Israel in 2009." Extending the "known range" seems a little clumsy.
  • For the length of the article (and aesthetically) I feel two paragraphs of lead would be best.
  • "a process to cultivate M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." How about "a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or "a process to cultivate morels, including the since-described M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or something similar?
  • "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, he determined" The study is the subject of the sentence, not Kuo. How about "In a 2008 study, Michael Kuo determined" or "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, it was determined"
  • So the name Morchella deliciosa is no longer used at all? It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has no article
  • "although most are typically found in the narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" Should be "although most are typically found in a narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" or "although most are typically found in the narrower range of 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)"
  • You don't link "sclerotia" at the first mention (though I'd recommend keeping it linked at the second
  • Not the end of the world if you don't have them, but do you have any information about differentiating this one from similar species in the US? M. deliciosa used by western American authors.[4] North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa (deliciosa? diminutiva? virginiana?) Was there anything about similar morels in the Israel paper?
  • US, USA or United States?
  • "Unlike the North American version that fruits for only a few weeks in the spring" This is contrary to what was said in the previous paragraph

Very strong article. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Images mostly good, but the source link on File:Morchella rufobrunnea 11174.jpg seems to be wrong. I'm also struck by what looks like atypical colouration on the lead image, but I'm happy to take your word if you're happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some quick comments on the sources (no spotchecks done)- You sometimes have 1 January 2000 (patents), sometimes 2000-01-01 (retrieval date). Sometimes you have "(PDF)" before the link, sometimes afterwards. Why do you italicise "California Fungi"? These are all real nitpicks, and it's possible no change is necessary. Otherwise, all sources look reliable and appropriately formatted. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both very much for your comments. I've already implemented some of the easier ones, and am pondering how to best action the others. Will post a full response soonish. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Far Side Virtual[edit]

Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Far Side Virtual is a strange album. It's experimental and outside the mainstream, but has received (and continues to receive) a glut of critical attention; it's alternately described as inconsequentially goofy or bleakly nihilistic, hinging on people's inability to tell if it's being performed with a straight face or not; and at the end of the day, it's just an album of songs that sound like replicas of circa-2004 MIDI ringtones. I worked on this article a lot last year, digging up a surprising amount about an album that I only had a little interest in. Looking at it again, I feel that the article is as comprehensive as an article about a recent album can be, and that I summarized a broad swath of critical opinions, analyses and interpretations. I think enough time has passed that we have some distance from the release date and I can confidently say that this is ready to be featured. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a few comments:
I can't speak for everyone but I was unfamiliar with the word drone before reading the lead. I'd suggest the full "drone music" instead.
Farraro's announcement of the album quote probably needs an explanation. Even something simple like saying that (if this is accurate) his press releases were part of his performance, or whatever would be the most accurate. But as it stands alone I don't think it works.
Is there any more information about the albums writing or recording?
I think that overall it needs much more background info other than just saying that it was made on Garage Band. There's a lot of great theory and interpretation but I think you should add much more information (if it is available) on the process and events surrounding its writing and recording. Obviously this isn't an album that was recorded in the traditional sense, and admittedly I don't personally know much about this type of thing. But I think that any other casual reader who is as unfamiliar as I am would also have some difficulty with aspects of the article that may seem overly obvious to people who know a lot about this genre of music.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A Cure for Pokeritis[edit]

Nominator: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead actors of this short, silent comedy film were among the first comedy film stars, although they are all but unknown today. This representative of their work was selected by the National Film Registry, and (now that I'm back from an unplanned Wikibreak), I'm happy to select it for Featured Article candidacy as well. I believe this is an especially comprehensive treatment of published sources. Most notably, silent films were not always meant to be silent. And with the help of the research library at UCLA, I was able to locate and include Vitagraph's original suggestions of the music to be played alongside screenings of the film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • "domestic comedy silent film short": I'm pretty sure "comedy" at the very least is overlinking—also, it reads pretty awkwardly (try saying it out loud). How about just "is a short silent film" and call it a "domestic comedy" later in the paragraph when summarizing the plot?
    • Agreed. I wanted to say that I cribbed this ugly style from an existing film FA. But since I can't for the life of me find which article that was, I'm going to assume that it was a bad hallucination instead of an actual template for compelling prose. Fixed, I hope. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the announced alternative title A Sure Cure for Pokeritis": meaning the alternative title was announced but not used?
    • Tweaked this wording a little, because I agree it sounded awkward, but there's no good answer to your question. Vitagraph made a big deal out of these re-releases at the time (and there was some discussion in contemporary media about whether it was ethical to re-release films with a dead star), but I can't find any evidence one way or the other as to whether that actually happened. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "members of his Bible study group dress up as police officers": I wonder if either of these links are worth linking. Also, since they bump into each other, they appear as a single link.
    • Cut the police impersonation link; I feel that's a pretty self-evident concept. But Bible study groups are a concept that not all of our readers will necessarily be familiar with, I don't think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Vitagraph's house organ published": since this is a silent film many readers might assume "house organ" refers to an accompanying musical instrument. Substitute something like "in-house publication"?
  • "for all of the studio's films, including A Cure for Pokeritis": you could safely drop "including A Cure for Pokeritis", since it's implied by "all".
  • "films were not generally archived": I might rearrange to "films generally were not archived"—I initally read this as having to do with "general archiving" (whatever that might be)
  • "range from over 150, to over 200, to over 260": I know you want to get that "200" ref in there, but "range from X to Y to Z" is pretty inelegant. Why not bundle the refs using the "For 150 see...For 200 see..." style?
    • I'm going to plead ignorance here. I'm normally not a fan of citation bundling, but I agree there's a case to be made for it here. Is there a sane, easy way to combine bundling that needs explanatory notes with shortened footnotes? I see that Template:sfn allows for additional comments via manipulation of the |ps field, and that Template:sfnm allows for bundled shortened references, but the |ps trick doesn't work there (allowing you to append stuff only to the actually end of the reference; there are no |nps fields). If not, perhaps I can simply reword this in a way that doesn't attempt a "from ... to ... to" construction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I need to rewrite this passage anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I restructured the paragraph entirely, hopefully for the better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I suppose another way of handling it is to offer a range, and then give the specific numbers and cites within an {{efn}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "This cinematography technique improved": is there really a good reason to have "cinematography" here (aside from a desire to link it)?
    • Because that's basically what makes it important. Many of the early silents were basically filmed theatrical performances. This is cinematography in the sense of the art of the motion picture medium, and it was a departure from the way this scene would have been staged on, well, a stage. I'm not sure if that's something I need to reword a bit to make clearer? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "or anthologies of specific songs to use as accompaniment"; "the first American comic film star": I'm pretty sure these links are overlinking.
    • Delinked. I considered fighting for the film star link, but if the consensus is that it's well enough understood, I'm not going to quibble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "painting Sitting up with a Sick Friend": do we have a year (or general timeframe) for this painting?
    • Some time between 1903 (when they were commissioned) and 1910 (when Coolidge made a known 'sequel' to the series). A handful of Coolidge's works were known to have been painted in specific years, but this, to the best of my knowledge, isn't one of them. I suspect 1905 or 1906, but that's really well into the realm of original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • How about "early 20th century"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Considered that. But I used "20th century" again very shortly afterward. So I opted for the 1903 series date. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there no way to work "General Film Company" into the body of the text & boot that ugly citation out of the infobox?
  • "The full public domain film": sounds more like advertising than a caption.
    • Changed this caption to simply the title and year, modeling it after the FA The Sinking of the Lusitania. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I did the GA review and the article has only improved since then. Also, it's very nice to see you back Squeamish. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

File check[edit]

  • The three files are all properly tagged PD works. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for release date?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Cut the Murray source (from Adanai). The site appears to have a staff and editorial control, and I could make a claim that it would be reliable for its primary area of expertise. But film history is objectively not its area of expertise, and the cite was redundant to what Harris says -- and he's unquestionably a subject matter expert. I'm going to go out on a limb defending the Nash cite here. I don't think Three Movie Buffs is notable, but third party sources have a positive opinion of their reliability. Rotten Tomatoes includes them in its critic review score composites, and it was treated favorably as an example of citizen journalism in a 2007 Master's dissertation. That's ... not much to go on, I'll admit. I'd much rather be citing one of the more comprehensive treatments of homosexuality in silent era film. Unfortunately, with hundreds upon hundreds of silent films to choose from, all of the more reliable sources only name a select subset as examples, mostly features films and, sadly, never this short. From a non-Wikipedia-editor perspective, I can cite stock character descriptions that are obviously applicable to the character here, but from our perspective, making that claim in the article is novel synthesis. If the consensus is that this source is inadequate for the claim, I'll cut the section, but will do so with regret. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me go back over my notes for a cite for the date. I can trivially cite it to Silentera, but I want to say I have something better around here somewhere also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Release date cited to Vitagraph Life Portrayals and included in prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, BUT with one reservation only if it applies. It looks like you have done some very impressive research for this article so I'd trust that all available information has been utilized. However I think that if there is any additional info on the actual production of the film it should be used. OR if there is any basic info about the Bunny/Finch films in general that could be used. For instance, did they follow a script? Did they just find a set and costumes and completely improvise the film? Did they often play the same types of characters and do those characters relate in any way to other films? When and where was it shot? Had they worked with any of the crew members before? I'm sure you know the material well from research but if anything additional can be added I think that it should be. But of course there's a lot of unknowns in very early film history so if none of this info is actually available this is a great article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Bosbyshell[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about… Oliver Bosbyshell, a rather obscure figure in the history of the mint, but who also held some fame in his own lifetime for claiming to be the first person wounded in the Civil War. That rather seems to have fallen by the wayside, a local historian in Pennsylvania I consulted had never heard of Bosbyshell, and a book on the early days of the Civil War that has a play-by-play of the Baltimore Riot doesn't mention him in that context. Interesting character though. Early nom permitted by Ian Rose. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Medal caption shouldn't end in period
  • File:Bosbyshell_medal_crop.jpg: what is the licensing status of the medal itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco review

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this 15k article should not have 4 paragraphs of lead.
  • Lead doesn't mention his later life
  • Perhaps link Confederate and Union at first mention?
  • Bosbyshell's - His, perhaps?
  • Watch for an over-reliance on semi-colons; I spot three in the first three sentences and section title
  • he contracted bronchitis while fighting the fire which destroyed his warehouse, then died shortly after a sea voyage he had taken in hopes of improving his health. The elder Bosbyshell died in Philadelphia eight weeks before his son's birth, - I get the feeling that these could be merged together.
  • returned from Mississippi by land - is the fact that she returned by land worth mentioning?
  • With Pleasants now on General Robert B. Potter's staff, - no frame of reference for what "now" means
  • at Philadelphia in 1876. In 1879, he was elected as commander of Post 2 in Philadelphia. - any way to avoid repeating Philadelphia?
  • On October 17, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison commissioned Bosbyshell as superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. ... Bosbyshell filed his oath as Philadelphia Mint superintendent on November 1, 1889. - Any way to avoid repeating the name of the post twice in three sentences?
  • In 1890, Bosbyshell deposited $4,200 of federal funds in the Keystone National Bank, which then went bankrupt. Bosbyshell was responsible for the debt, which was only $300 less than his annual salary, and paid it off by stages, completing the payments in 1894. - can this be merged anywhere? It's really short
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise his Mint career was uneventful?
So far as I can tell from the refs. Mint records aren't the most complete and Bosbyshell's not well-studied.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Link Pennsylvania National Guard on first mention?
  • With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898, Bosbyshell organized and served as colonel of the Nineteenth Pennsylvania National Guard Regiment, which was used for homeland defense. He remained in that capacity from August 1898 until November, 1899. - anywhere this can be merged?
Not that I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • He had four sons with his wife Martha, who died in 1914; their eldest son Nathan died in Los Angeles in 1888 at age 23. - Merge this with the bit about Bosbyshell's death? I mean, his wife's death is not quite an "interest" as with the GAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps discuss his role in various coins, such as the Isabella quarter? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I've put a bit in. I'm reluctant to go too far as just because a letter is from Bosbyshell, it may not have represented his views, the way the Mint was organized, you always went through your superior officer. With the quarter, it seems clearest.
Not sure. Generally it says "public schools" or "common schools". Most likely, from what you say. I think that's everything, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Yet another well done article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Empress Matilda[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Empress Matilda, variously the Holy Roman Empress (or so she claimed!), and a contender for the throne of England in the 12th century. One of the few female war-time leaders of the medieval period, even at the end of her long life she was felt to still be a powerful personality, and clearly "of the stock of tyrants". I believe it captures the current academic literature on her life, and is now of featured article standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • By ODBN, I assume you mean ODNB? If so, why do you sometimes use that notation and other times include the full citation in footnotes?
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Be consistent in whether you use London, UK or just London
  • Bowling Green State or Bowling State Green? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki, should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments by Johnbod I don't have time for more at the moment, but a read of the first few screens shows some fairly obvious missing links, & a few prose points, as well as historical issues over phrasing. Generally looks pretty good, but needs a polish. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now To be clear, I will resume reading the article after being told the polishing has happened, which it hasn't yet. Not yet at FA standard. Please don't ask for a list of "examples" (though there is one example below). That's the nominator's job, not the reviewer's. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - we're all volunteers here. I won't press you for any details John. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support I supported this at the A class review, noting that it was "A well-written and thoroughly researched article". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick citation comment: Chibnall, Marjorie (2004–13), "Matilda [Matilda of England] (1102–1167), Empress, Consort of Heinrich V", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, retrieved 22 December 2013. is repeated over and over in various footnotes. Might it not be more advisable to move it into the bibliography and supply a shortened "Chibnall 2004–13" in those footnotes? As it is, it's the only full citation like that, and it just sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise tidy-looking list of footnotes. Imzadi 1979  05:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC) One more thing: "New York City" isn't the name of the largest city in the US. It's just New York, and traditionally in citations it does not need its state ("New York, NY") appended. Imzadi 1979  05:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi, NY fixed. The pattern used in the citations is for books, journal articles, etc. to be listed in the bibliography, and for web pages etc. to live as cite webs in the footnotes. Unusually, this article only has one web source, which is why it stands out - but it does follow the pattern used in many other "English medieval kings" biographical articles, and makes it easy for other editors to add in new webpages. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: I have three minor comments:

  1. In the "Death of Henry" section, we are told she "chose to return to Normandy" but then confusingly that she went "back to England" in the next sentence.
  2. In the "Disputes" section, "Normandy castles" might be easier to read as "castles in Normandy".
  3. Note 7 appears to be incomplete. It can probably either be cut completely since the timing is only implicit in the sentence anyway or expanded to explain who says what/when.

With regard to Johnbod's comment above, the prose distinguishing between the many Matildas and at least two Henrys might bear more polishing, but generally I had no trouble following the narrative or understanding the history so am happy to support. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • All done - thanks Kiernan. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so you don't think Investiture Controversy needs a link, for example? Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't pick fights where none exists. DrKiernan (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791[edit]

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this again. A major even in the history of Poland. Last nom stalled without a single support or oppose. Since then the article has been subject to another copyediting, because we can't have enough. It would be nice to see someone take some interest in this, this time... Ping primary contributors: @Nihil novi, Orczar, Logologist, Baffle gab1978, Ceoil, Gabbe, Crisco 1492: @Mathiasrex, Volunteer Marek, Malik Shabazz:. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Well, I'm back to FAC from an unexpected Wikibreak. This is far from my usual review topic, but might as well jump in, right? As my usual, sourcing and reference formatting are my main concerns:

  • Date formats need standardized throughout the referencing. I see mmm dd, yyyy; dd mmm yyyy; and dd-mm-yyyy.
    • @Squeamish Ossifrage: Where? I spend 10 minutes checking and I don't see any inconsistencies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As it stands right now, most of the dates are mmm, dd yyyy. But see retrieval dates for: 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 33, 37, 41, 43 ... stopping here, all of which are dd mmm yyyy. Or vice versa, if you'd rather the default be the other way around. I think there was just the one dd-mm-yyyy and it died to a cull of a dubious source already. More responses tomorrow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Print materials typically do not require retrieval dates. The idea is that web content is likely to change, but print is, well, print, even if mirrored online. I think someone in a previous FAC said you should do this though, so feel free to ignore me here. MOS-wise, it's probably up to editor preference.
  • Authors in the reference section should ideally only be linked at their first appearance.
  • Publication locations are optional, but they're all or nothing. I see Gierowski's work with a publication location, but not much (any?) else.
    • If they are optional, what's wrong with having them for some? Still, they provide no useful information; I removed all instances of that parameter being used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, this has merely been my understanding of FAC/MOS precedent. Sometimes I'm picky by design, sometimes I'm just the messenger. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Jacek Jędruch source (ref #5 at the moment) lacks an ISBN number. I believe it should be 978-0-8191-2508-8. But also...
    • There are references to Constitutions, elections, and legislatures of Poland, 1493–1977: a guide to their history, published in 1982 by University Press of America but also to the same title published in 1998 by EJJ books. I presume the latter is a second edition or update or something of that nature; regardless, if you're sourcing this material from physical copies, as is ideal, it would probably be preferable to avoid citing multiple editions of the same work, unless the source changes make that necessary.
    • Standardized; I used only one copy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow. This article cites two pages of George Sanford's work 26 times? His Wikipedia article isn't very informative as to whether that might represent undue weight. Regardless, I guess those are some information-dense pages?
    • I'd expect he provides a lot of useful facts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I'm adding up all the various citations to Jacek Jędruch, it looks like you lean very heavily on him, as well. That's not necessarily an objection, just an inquiry to ensure that the literature here has been thoroughly surveyed.
  • The "Lietuvos TSR istorija" reference doesn't seem to be properly formatted, and so I can't make much sense of it. It's also pretty clearly in Lithuanian, which needs to be noted. This is the sort of source where an OCLC number is ideal (since there's presumably no ISBN assigned).
  • Not sure what's going on with the large untranslated quote in the Maria Konopka-Wichrowska reference. Hmm, actually, it looks like you're citing this source merely for its quote from Bogusława Leśnodorskiego. If so, can you cite Leśnodorskiego?
    • I translated the quote. The article doesn't cite its sources properly, and I cannot locate the (likely offline) work of BL that would presumably contained the quoted sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Google Books link to the Jeremy Black source is broken, at least for me.
  • Is the Carl Bucki source a reliable source? The site identifies it as the "[t]ext of a presentation made at the Polish Arts Club of Buffalo on the occasion of the celebrations of Poland's Constitution Day on May 3, 1996." And I don't see any particular qualifications for the speaker? I'm open to being convinced otherwise, though. In any case, he shouldn't be cited with the Hon(orable) prefix if the source is retained.
  • Is the publication date for Reddaway correct? I can't find anything that matches that entry. An OCLC identifier would be vastly preferable to Google's internal identifier, also.
  • The Machnikowski reference is missing his first name (it's Piotr).
  • Okay, I'm sorry for this, because template mismatching is one of those awful things that's no fun to pick on and a pain to fix, but the Rafał Kowalczyk and Łukasz Kamiński doesn't have the same templating as your other references. For example, the language tag is formatted entirely differently from the other non-English sources, and it has a comma after the author names instead of a period. There's probably another template available to help match styles, or else there's always the hard way of manual formatting.
  • The Kramnick reference is not formatted correctly. "Introduction" should be quoted rather than italicized, and you need to make some reference to the original publication date, even if you're working from the Penguin edition. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were certainly not submitting new work in 1987. Kramnick's introduction doesn't make him the author of the actual work there, either. And there are some other formatting problems with this entry, too.
  • And actually, it looks like there are a few more sources that use the same templating as the Kowalczyk and Kamiński entry. But that still doesn't match the rest.
  • Why is Polonia Music a reliable source?
  • The Carrington source gives the author in last, first order instead of the first last order used elsewhere. Looks like there's a stray character after the volume number, too.
    • Fixed.
      • I'm still showing that volume number as 88'. Is that intentional (I wouldn't think so, but I've seen weirder numbering schemes, so...)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed, I missed your prior comment on this.
  • On the Michalski source, I'm fairly certain that he's the author of the cited article, but not the entire work, which means we need more bibliographical information for the work itself (author or editor, specifically). Is this a reprint of an older source or an actual 2011 publication? If the latter, it almost certainly has an ISBN. If the former, again, an OCLC would be ideal, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what work you're citing here from the WorldCat entries.
    • Chapter title added. Here's the Worldcat entry: [4]. How to chose the correct ISBN? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me try to figure this one out. I'm seeing 2011 as the publication date just for volume 47, and 2002 (I think) for volume 41, and that's making it sort of challenging for me to determine what the right identifiers are here. I'll try to get back to you, but I don't suppose you've got this physically on hand to just look? I can hope, right? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Sadly, no. I only took scans of the pages with text, not of the title page. If it helps, the work is Polish Biographical Dictionary. Year 2002 for that volume is confirmed by their official page at [5]. The reason for multiple ISBN may be this: A new tome of PSB is first published over few years as a series of smaller issues, then collected into the big full volume. An educated guess would be that those ISBNs are the collected ISBNs for the issues plus the final collected volume one. I was using the collected volume, but I won't be able to check the book until summer time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not an extremely big fan of Further Reading sections. Especially when these have retrieval dates and basically look like they're just references that got cut from use. If they have something to say that's germane to the article, cite it. If not, why do we need them?
  • The Original Prints section is nonstandard. I'm entirely on board with supporting a link that lets readers see the original document in question, but that belongs in External Links, not a custom section.
  • The External Links need to be contextualized better. Some of these are pretty much bare links, and that's not okay. And at least a couple of them seem redundant to referenced works. Surely, with how much the article cites him already, Jacek Jędruch's work doesn't need to be an EL also?
    • EL cleanup done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Totally on board with that first EL, although I'd like to see less of the explanatory material in the blue text (and in a bit more readable prose). What makes polishconstitution.org important for the reader? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No prose review at this time. Most of the above bits are formatting tweaks and similar "light" work, but I'm frankly concerned that this just isn't a systematic review of the literature. A small number of sources provide an immense share of the referencing, and a cursory search revealed a substantial body of literature not addressed by the article, especially in scholarly journals. See: here (although you do cite Lukowski quite heavily already), here, here, here. The Hillar source is particularly one that I think warrants examination, at the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    • I think that addresses most points. I'll review those sources, but I doubt they can add much than trivia. Is there any particular aspect you think we are lacking with regard to being comprehensive? We cannot cite each and every work on the subject, particularly when it is major enough to have spawned numerous books and articles on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, obviously, a comprehensive review of literature doesn't mean "cite everything ever". But it does mean there's a need to ensure that the broadest range of reliable sources and positions are covered, and that authors' voices are given due weight. This article owes a lot to Sanford and Jędruch, and is fairly light on scholarly journal sources, despite there being quite a few available. That may or may not be an objection, and I haven't really had the time to look, but I'm merely raising it as a concern. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. 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, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am reviewing the other sources added:

  • [6] mentions this constitution in a passing sentence and as such as irrelevant here;
  • Lukowski (2009) has been incorporated in those diffs: [7]. Most of what he discusses seems either already covered or too detailed, although I used his introduction to add a sentence on some major academic works on the topic. I will provide comments on the remaining two articles over the next few days.
  • Brzezinski provides some useful historical overview and was incorporated thus: [8]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Squeamish Ossifrage: Regarding the last article, [9], it's in The Polish Review, a publication that annoyingly (given my interests) is not available to either of the two academic institutions I've library accounts at. [10] and [11] also look worth reviewing. Fortunately, I should be able to read them through JSTOR free access soon (it allows access to 3 new articles every two weeks). Neither of my institutions have also the access to [12] which also could be worth reviewing and which doesn't have any free access options ( I'll ping User:DGG and User:Phoebe who may be able to obtain this article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: Unfortunately JSTOR free access doesn't seem to work for me anymore (I have the three articles added to my JSTOR shelf, but when I try to access them it shows me as logged out - I tried Firefox, Chrome and IE, no lucl). So unless someone can send me copies of those articles, I am afraid I am unable to review them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Piotr; I don't have access to the J. Baltic Studies article. Do you have access to interlibrary loan? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:RNieustająca.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • Information is presented in the image description. While it is possible a different source may provide more information, I do not believe it is require to conduct such a detective work here. It is clear the work is PD, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Stanisław_Staszic.PNG: since this is on Commons, you will need to include licensing from the source country as well as the US
  • File:May_constitution_pre20th_cent_book_cover.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Constitution_of_May_3_in_Lithuanian_language.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  • File:Medal_commemorating_Constitution_of_May_3,_1791.png: what is the licensing status of the medal in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great prose and grammar and well-written, high-quality style. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Clackline Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Clackline Bridge, Western Australia's only bridge to have spanned both a waterway and railway. It is a heritage listed structure with a unique inclined curvilinear design, formerly carried Great Eastern Highway (my most recent FA), and recieved various upgrades and improvements since its construction in the 1930s. The article itself has been similarly upgraded and improved through a successful GA nomination, Peer Review comments, and copyediting [13], and I believe it meets the FA criteria. - Evad37 [talk] 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 03:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support. This looks fine to me, with a high level of detail for a relatively minor structure. The one thing that I think would improve it would be a photograph showing some of the timber piers, since they seem to be a key to its heritage significance. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Thopha saccata[edit]

Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the world's loudest cicada - it ran through FAC before but generated little interest...we pondered about the prose so it has been through Peer Review, which has been very helpful (and thanks to those who commented there!). This has helped massage its prose alot and we feel it is at or near FA level. Let us know what we can do to improve it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I supported last time, and the article still looks good to me now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (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, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comments. Nice article, two minor things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • and red-brown and black underparts— "and has"
  • while the former has black markings of the leading edge (costa) of the forewing extend past the basal cell—first "of" should be "on", methinks, and "extending"
fixed both - well spotted - thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support; mostly had my say at PR. I still feel that the poems are a weak point to finish on (perhaps you could hide them in the middle of the paragraph somehow?), but that's a stylistic disagreement. A couple of comments... J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found in dry sclerophyll forest, preferring to alight and feed on large eucalypts[13][14] with diameters over 20 cm and sparse foliage concentrated at a height between 10 and 25 m,[13] particularly rough-barked species,[10] apples (Angophora) and Tristania.[11]" The nymphs are feeding on roots, but what precisely are the adults feeding on? (I see you mention sap further down- this should be present elsewhere in the article!)
added general note - should be gone into much more detail at cicada Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So the eggs are laid in trees, but the nymphs live underground? Do they burrow down through the tree, or make a mad dash down the side?
the annoying thing is missing information compared with (say) bird articles. I have not seen it written how they get down unfortunately Got something! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Great stuff- that's plugged the gaps, for me. Delegates- Please note that my support is conditional on there being no source problems, as I have not looked in detail. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Inconsistent caption use of SE vs Southeast - suggest the latter
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Source link for File:Australia_Locator_Map.svg (the original source for the map) is dead.
Weird - the link seems to work ok now - see here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 30.4-mile Fishing Creek, the largest river in Columbia County, Pennsylvania north of the Susquehanna River. Since the previous FAC, the article has been copyedited by the GOCE, so that should take care of that issue. I have also (as I mentioned in the previous FAC) addressed most of the concerns raised in the first FAC (about a year ago). Well, thanks for commenting and I do hope this passes this time. --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just adding a quick drive-by comment about the lead -- I think the reader would benefit from seeing something about the Native Americans or the first permanent inhabitants near the creek, before jumping into the different industries. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from Mike Cline

The references to "Fishing Creek has a large population of brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout" is misleading and not supportable with sources. From sources I can find, Fishing Creek has a small wild (naturally reproducing) population of brook trout (native) in its headwaters and an even smaller population of wild brown trout (non-native) in the headwaters. Most of the river’s trout are "stocked" by either the PA Fish and Game Commission or the Fishing Creek Sportsman Association. The PA Fish and Game Commission identifies Fishing Creek as a "Stocked Stream" not a wild trout stream. The source for the statement: "An 1887 book described Fishing Creek and its tributaries as being 'alive with trout'." Needs a page number (226) and as written mis-characterizes the source some as the source actually says: "The Fishing Creeks and their numerous tributaries were literally alive with trout, if the stories of old residents may be credited." "Were" being the operative word here. By 1887, most of the native brook trout in the northeast were in serious decline and introduced brown and rainbow trout had probably not made serious inroads. I think it is important to identify and distinguish between wild native fish, wild introduced fish and purely stocked fish populations as well as commenting on the decline of native and wild populations.

Here’s a couple of sources to help you get started fixing this section.

[14], [15]

--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: I have 1) removed the bit about the population being large, 2) added that the fish are stocked, and 3) fixed the "alive with trout" claim. I would also like to thank you for providing me the resources to fix this instead of just dumping comments on this page. --Jakob (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from Cullen28

I have concerns with the statement "Nomadic Native Americans reached the area near the mouth of Fishing Creek by 8000 B.C. By 3000 to 2000 B.C., some of them went into the Fishing Creek valley during the winter to hunt deer and bears, and returned to the Susquehanna River in the summer. Around this time, trade routes to the Fishing Creek area were created. The area was not permanently inhabited until 1000 B.C. when some Native American villages were built at the mouth of Fishing Creek." This seems to imply that there was something different about the Native American settlement of this particular creek as opposed to other similar creeks of the wider region. Do the research studies focus on Fishing Creek in the period 3000 to 2000 B.C. as opposed to other similar creeks? Or was the pattern of Native American hunting consistent throughout the wider area? I would like the article to justify any extraordinary claims, or not to make them if there is nothing unusual about the Native American usage of this particular creek. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Although I don't think it's really necessary, I've added a sentence explaining when Native Americans arrived in Pennsylvania for reference. --Jakob (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I have concerns about us of the book "Discovering Bloomsburg: A Bicentennial History" published by the Bloomsburg Bicentennial Commission according to Google Books, as a reliable source for academic details of Native American settlements of the area. There is no ISBN number nor even a cover image available on Google Books. Is this a promotional effort by local boosters, or is it a book published with the sort of professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking that we would expect? The reference now says that the publisher was "Haddon Craftsmen" which was located in Bloomsburg right near the mouth of Fishing Creek. My impression is that "Haddon Craftsmen" was a (now defunct) book printing company and not really a publisher. I would expect that all books used as references would have an ISBN number, unless the book was published before 1970. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The chapter being used was written by Deeanne Wymer, who is a professor in the relevant subject matter. That should clear up the reliable source issue. --Jakob (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Then her authorship should be reflected in the reference. Is William M Ballie the editor then? Please correct accordingly. Does the book have an ISBN number? Please clarify who is the actual publisher. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I've fixed the author/editor name and added what is (presumably) the actual publisher. There does not appear to be an ISBN though. --Jakob (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to promotion of this article to FA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Grus (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel I've done just about all I can to improve this article and reckon it's on par with some other constellation FAs. Have a read and let me know what else to fix..hopefully less stuff thanks to Stigmatella aurantiaca for a detailed GA review and some other copyediting eyes...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 1 April 2014 (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, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • None of the given captions should end in periods
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The usage conditions for File:From_Cosmic_Spare_Tyre_to_Ethereal_Blossom.tif seem to require in-caption attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual quality work, just a couple of minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • gave its stars Bayer designations in 1756, some of which had been previously consid-ered—"some" refers to the designations as written
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • and northern United States—"the"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • three times/3 times— inconsistent, both versions used
made all numbers as numbers everywhere in this bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Constellation Grus.jpg—pushes heading across, can easily be lowered a para to avoid this
nudged downwards Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
All looks good, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support Excellent work. Queries:

  • Is it normal to have a big row of question marks in the Meteor shower part of the infobox? Surely it is not unknown whether or not they occur in this part of the sky?
there are none - sometimes they get left as ???? fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The article has 'Keyser' in the lead, but Keyzer in 'Stars'. Which is it?
can be spelt either way but settled on 's' for this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "in their Malay and Madagascan vocabulary" - what??
the stars were recorded there for some reason. No idea why as there were no words in Malay or madagascan. I have removed it as it doesn't add to the understanding of the constellation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Alpha Gruis has an Arabic name (Alnair), while Gamma is Al Dhanab, but there's no mention of middle eastern constellations in the 'history' section. Any reason?
some stars of Grus were seen as part of Piscis Austrinus, which does have a classical history, until hived off to form a new constellation - do you think I should somehow highlight this or make more prominent? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what I had been getting at was that the Arabs, who were among history's most prominent astronomers, may have adopted different constellations, as well as different star names. But if this is anything to go by, they did not. So no problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular criteria that underpin the decision to make some galaxies redlinks, and others not?
hmm, not really. I don't recall de-redlinking them. Will re-redlink. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Please address the following:

  • The segment "astronomer Ian Ridpath has reported the symbolism likely came from him originally" is ambiguous and may cause some confusion.
changed "him" to "Plancius"...but now I have two "Plancius" in the one sentence... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "...close and fused into orbit facing one another": fused into orbit? Tidally-locked perhaps?
yup/changed - even a link - Tidal locking Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "...Two ultraluminous X-ray sources and one supernova have been observed in NGC 7424. SN 2001ig, one of the two supernovas within NGC 7424": is it one supernova or two?
one - no idea how that got there...removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the references, all instances of "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a few copy-edit fixes to address the remainder of my concerns. Otherwise, it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011)[edit]

Nominator(s): starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a professional wrestling event by WWE held in 2011. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter rated it Event of the Year, while its main event match between CM Punk and John Cena won Match of the Year. I submitted this article as an FAC in January, but there weren't enough comments. I then submitted for peer review, but there were no comments at all. Hopefully this will receive more attention this time around. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Caelum[edit]

Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything I say—not all of it is necessary for FA.

  • Alt text would be nice for the images.
    • I think I've done this correctly...images are not my strong suit. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the Latin pronunciation of "Caelum" unacceptible in English?
  • it was formerly known as Caelum Scalptorium: former to de Lacaille's introduction?
    • Appears to be already in the "History" section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but what I'd meant was that it wasn't clear here that "Caelum Scalptorium" was the name de Lacaille gave it—it could be read as that it had that name before de Lacaille got to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • romanized to Caelum Scalptorium (The Engraver's Chisel): as a translation, should "The Engraver's Chisel" not be in quotes?
  • depicted the name as plural: can you "depict" a word as plural?
  • all have mostly fallen out of use: how can "all" have fallen "mostly" out of use?
  • further at a distance of: you could safely drop "a distance of"
  • so close that they share envelopes: Is there something good to link to here?
  • The other twelve naked-eye stars in Caelum are not referred to by Bode's Bayer designations anymore, including RV Caeli.: citation?
    • This is more a deduction based on the fact that there are no modern sources that I could find that refer to any of the other stars by their Bayer designations. If you think this strays too much into WP:OR territory, I can remove it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It does seem like OR to me, but let's see if anyone else objects. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Qian, S. -B.; Liu, L.; Zhu, L. -Y.; Dai, Z. -B.; Fernández Lajús, E.; Baume, G. L. (2012): what's with the hyphens? Are they supposed to be there?
Image check[edit]
  • Images are fine—either public domain or appropriately licenced. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Have tinkered with this constellation article a bit as it has been buffed by StringTheory11. Only slight query is a segment that has " consists of four stars, and 20 stars in total" - which should be changed to "4" and "20" or "four" and "twenty" I guess. Otherwise the prose has just the right amount of embellishment to make it flow nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've spelled "twenty" out now. Thanks for the support! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: it seems fine. Just one little issue: in the references, "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency. Beta Caeli is actually listed as a main sequence star by NStars, but the discrepancy among the sources can be left for astronomers to sort out. Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I fixed the ref. Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support constellation was recognized as burin and an échoppe,[4] although it has come to be recognized simply as would benefit from tweaking to avoid the repetition of "recognised", but otherwise looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Changed to "shown as". Thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • I'd expect to see the last bit of the first para of Stars cited.
    • Has anyone done a source review for formatting/reliability? StringTheory, if no-one volunteers soon, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Eisner's first book-length comic book wasn't the first to use the term "graphic novel", but it has been credited with popularizing the term. The book is a cycle of four stories set mostly in a tenement building in New York City in the 1930s, and was an early English-level attempt to raise the maturity and art levels of the content of the medium. A Contract with God is no Maus, but was an important stepping stone in the comics medium's history in the Anglosphere. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Generally not necessary to include (pictured) in captions, where it's clear what is being pictured
  • If File:Contract_w_God_excerpt_page_18.jpg and File:A_Contract_With_God_page_116.png have the same purpose of use, it's difficult to justify having both. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed "(pictured)" and File:Contract_w_God_excerpt_page_18.jpg. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: - images need more specificity...Modernist (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The image depicting tenements in the Bronx - is not the Bronx but Manhattan...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Would it be acceptable if "in the Bronx" were dropped from the caption (or changes, say, to "New York City")? Or are you aware of a free image in the Bronx? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • - The image depicting the Catskills is the Catskills but the 'Jewish Alps' referred to in the article tends to refer to Sullivan County, New York - while the image used seems to be a view from Greene County, New York
    • Dropped the image. Are you aware of a more appropriate one to use? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Done, added an image in Sullivan County and an image of tenements in the Bronx...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments read through it today on my phone - a nice read. Will jot some queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Sexual content is prominent in the stories, though not in the gratuitous manner of underground comix, which celebrated a hedonistic lifestyle. In Contract, the sex is not so much erotic as disturbing, its characters frustrated or filled with guilt - this comes across as an opinion (not in itself a bad thing) but maybe better to add who said it and clarify that it is their observation/opinion.
Well, it's cited to two different sources. I'd like to provide more context to the statement, but it would likely fall under OR—basically, sexual (or other grown-up) content was taboo in American comics (especially under the Comics Code Authority). Underground comix was pretty much all about breaking taboos, and they took it to extremes. So you had the reserved extremes of the mainstream versus the gratuitous extremes of the undergrounds, and Eisner's treatment of sexuality (neither avoiding nor flaunting it) more or less stood alone in 1978. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Benny tries to rape Goldie - seems pretty extreme just dropped in there....can some more story/context be provided?
I'm not sure there's much more to it than is stated—Benny thought he would get himself a rich wife, and when he discovered she was as poor as he was, he took out his frustration on her in a noble, manly way. Actually, there is an error (that I've now corrected): he didn't just "try to" rape her, he raped her (although it's later revealed that he was unable to penetrate, I don't think there's a definition of rape that this wouldn't fall under). I suppose it is extreme and sudden, but that is pretty much how it was in the story—Goldie tells Benny she's poor, and the next thing you know he's taking off his shirt and tears all her clothes to ribbons with one yank (I'm sure this is compression of action or something, but I'd call it less than deftly handled on Eisner's part). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
How about "sexually assaults" then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I'm still mulling this over. Some "sexually assaulted" almost seems to dance around what Benny did—"sexual assault" covers a broad range of activities, including those that are far less egregious than what Benny did. If someone else chimes in preferring "sexually assaulted", I won't oppose, but for now I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Happy to pause on this one or wait for other opinions on consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok - looking at the segment of text at Duncan p. 147 - I think some more word substitution to distance from the source/paraphrasing would be a good thing (agree this looks tricky as I have tried thinking of some synonyms) - e.g. "cutter" I have no idea what occupation that is, surely there is a better contemporary word (?). Am trying to think of a synonym for "snub" too ..."rebuff"?
Changed "snubbed" to "Herbie, an intern Goldie had earlier turned down".
Benny works for "Pinkus Furs"—I guess he cuts furs? There aren't a lot of clues in the story. He's shown at work, but he's not working—he's putting on a necktie getting ready for vacation, as a "Mr Cohen" tells the phone operator "Tell Pinkus we can't' ship today—Benny, our cutter is goin' on vacation!" I suppose I could cahnge it to "a cutter in a fur factory" or something, but I'm not sure it's even a factory ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I would add the factory as on its own the word is archaic to the point I guessed what it meant but never heard/seen it used. Agree I can't see any other synonym for cutter.
The thing is, I can't even be sure it's a factory. It's only shown briefly as a dark room—the panel's mostly black—and it's not clear at all what's going on in there (to me, anyways). There appear to be a couple of furs (I assume) on a table in front of one character, and apparently Benny is the only cutter (does this mean it's a small operation, or is there typically only one cutter? I have no idea). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, the para on sex, Duncan put the disturbing rather than erotic in quotes (I guess) because the contrast between the two was specifically made by Lambert, so I am uneasy about generalising it here - almost all these comments are observations/evaluations made by the author of the chapter, so I think some should be attributed - the explanation of Eisner's background is interesting here too and might be worth adding (and that can be attributed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
annoyingly, Lambert seems not to be listed as a reference :P ...I think it is this - be good to look up...and its on google books Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it, and attributed to Lambert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't think Eisner's background was good to go in here too? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, which part of his background do you mean? I'm not seeing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
(sorry re delay) the second last para pn p. 147 of Duncan - "He was an artist pushing the boundaries of the comic book form, yet he was a conservative middle-aged businessman" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see. That's good to add, and now I've done so. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, otherwise happy with prose and have checked that stories do not paraphrase Duncan text. Leaning support pending discussion of above (not sure if above essential) and others coming along and taking a look and being happy with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

SMS Emden (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The centenary of the sinking of this famous commerce-raiding cruiser (9 November 1914) is rapidly approaching, and I'd like to have the article run on the main page that day - I have a short list of such articles, but this being the most famous (and chronologically first) ship in the group, I figured it ought to go first to FAC as well. I wrote this article in October last year, and it passed an A-class review at MILHIST a couple of weeks ago; it is also a part of the largest GT on Wikipedia (and the first in that series to come to FAC). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Jose: Given OCLC number appears to be for 10th edition, not ninth
    • I wonder if that's an error on Worldcat's end. It says the 10th edition, published in 1941, whereas the awm.gov.au page states that the 9th edition was published that year; highly unlikely they published two editions in the same year. This one is more likely the 10th edition.
  • Check order of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment As a bit of a drive by comment, I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't note the disposition of surviving elements of Emden. One of her guns is mounted on the corner of a major intersection in Sydney, another forms part of a display on her final battle in the Australian War Memorial (complete with a rather odd sound and light show in which it occasionally "fights" a preserved gun from HMAS Sydney!), and I imagine that the AWM and Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre have additional bits of the ship in their collections. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I've added info on the three guns that were recovered, along with the bell, stern ornament, and various artifacts in the AWM collection - the RANHC doesn't have as helpful a website, and I haven't managed to find anything there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • I've added a much more plausible account of Emden's encounter with Glen Turret at Penang from Corbett.
    • Thanks for that.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • No DABs and no duplicate links.
  • Hyphenate 97 ton as a compound adjective.
    • Fixed.
  • Do we have any information on how many times Sydney hit Emden, or even ammunition expenditure?
    • Nothing I've seen - I'd wager no one bothered counting since she was pretty well swiss cheese by the time Sydney was done with her.
  • Link run aground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Added. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments by Coemgenus:

  • Is there any particular reason she was named Emden? Explaining that Emden is a town, at least, might be of interest to readers.
    • Starting with the Bremen-class cruisers, all German light cruisers were named after towns - at some point, I'll need to create a German counterpart for United States ship naming conventions, since the reasoning behind some of the choices are fairly interesting (for instance, in the late 1890s, Kaiser Bill mandated that capital ships be named after the German states - and especially the land-locked ones - to drum up support for the Navy in a traditionally Army-dominated society). In any event, I added mention of the connection to the lead.
  • When you say "Ostamerikanischen station," does that mean there was a substantial German naval presence in the Americas? If so, where were they based?
    • Yes, there was a reasonably substantial German presence in the Americas (for instance, a few cruisers and a couple of gunboats joined the British in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–03. I don't know where they were based for sure though - typically the German squadrons operated out of European ports (usually British, since they were the best-developed) in an area where no German base was available (for instance, before the Kiaotschou concession was seized, German ships in Chinese waters usually operated out of British Hong Kong, and in German East Africa, cruisers frequently overhauled in Capetown or Bombay before the floating drydock arrived in Dar es Salaam).
  • A link and brief explanation of the Kiautschou Bay concession might help the reader understand why German ships were based out of Tsingtao.
    • Added a link to the lead and a short line in the body explaining the seizure of the concession.
  • Throughout, you use the phrase "decided to" a lot. Sometimes it's appropriate, but often the action that's really of interest is what the captain did, not what he decided to do.
  • Where did Ayesha come from?
    • She was just moored at Direction Island - no idea where or even when she was built, apart from that she was ancient and barely seaworthy.
  • That's all for now, I'll take a second run at it later. Very nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Coemgenus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Nigel Ish
According to "Narrative of the Proceedings of H.M.A.S. Sydney" in the Naval Review (magazine), 1915, Issue 2, pp. 448–459 [16], Sydney fired 670 rounds, claiming an estimated 100 hits.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much Nigel, I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sega CD[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This article had a previous FAC which received little feedback and was archived. Instead of going for an instant re-nomination, I opted to work on and bring Sega 32X through FAC instead. It's been a little while, but I've put some more effort into this article since then, including doing some more minor buffs and adding a bit of polish to really make this article shine. It's also a part of the WP:FTC nomination of Sega Genesis as a featured topic, along with czar's ongoing nomination of Menacer. It's good to go and ready for another run at FAC, and as always I welcome all of the feedback I get during this process. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. 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, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Close. Very close.

  • "Reasons for the Sega CD's limited sales include the add-on's high price, lack of significant enhancement to the Genesis console, and lack of ability to function without a console attached." - Carries a slight air of non-neutrality. I'd switch this to a "Writers have cited numerous reasons for the Sega CD's limited sales, such as..."
    • I've actually decided to rework this into Reception, where I feel it fits better anyway. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "as well as the controversial Night Trap, which resulted in Congressional hearings on video game violence." - The second clause isn't really necessary, as this has been covered extensively earlier.
  • "Four separate reviews scored the add-on 8, 9, 8, and 8 out of 10, citing the upgrades it provides to the Genesis and a few select titles, but noted anticipation of upcoming titles for the system" - Slightly awkward wording. How about "Four separate reviews scored the add-on 8, 9, 8, and 8 out of 10; reviewers cited its upgrades to the Genesis as well as its its high-quality and expanding library of games."
  • "Retrospective reception of the Sega CD is mixed, though it has often been criticized for not offering enough to gamers to justify its steep cost." - How is it being criticized for this a contradiction of its reception being mixed? I'd split this part off into a new sentence with no "though" - either that or mention the CD's well-received, albeit limited, library of titles in the same breath. "Mixed" is accurate, I'd say, but stick with isosceles weighting.
  • I feel like the Night Trap section might be a little detailed given the low attention paid to the Sega CD itself there.
  • "It was unveiled to the public for the first time at the 1991 Tokyo Toy Show, to positive reception" - Can you elaborate a little?
    • Added "from critics". The source isn't really much more specific than that. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The specified limit on time spent seeking the heads versus playing a track was 5 per cent. Some of our video-based titles were running around 90 per cent." - A little unclear. Can you paraphrase this, adding some non-technical context?
  • I realize this is an important piece of information that one wouldn't want to jettison, but is Man!ac Magazine a reliable source?
    • Absolutely. Man!ac, now known as M! Games, is a leading video game publication in Germany, published by Cybermedia Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Its use here is no different than the use of an old issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly or a comparable American magazine from 1995. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sega CD attached to a Sega Genesis" - The lettering isn't quite visible at current resolution, which isn't a problem, but which suggests that you should specify which part of this contraption is the Sega CD. I'm not familiar with the Genesis, as my first home console was a GameCube and I didn't get into Sonic until the early 2000s, and the average reader may also not be. How about "Sega CD (on right) ..."?

Tezero (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; the article looks good to me now. The German publication really should be listed at WP:VG/RS, though, as sometimes that's all I have to go by. Tezero (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:VG/RS isn't an all-inclusive list, but I'm sure if more articles use it, it may come up for discussion there. I've been pushing to get Sega-16 on there selectively for its interviews and postings by established video game journalist Ken Horowitz and just haven't gotten it done yet. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a nice overview that hits all the salient points regarding the addon as thoroughly as current English-language sources allow. I took the liberty of tweaking the language a bit to improve flow in a couple of places, but overall the writing is solid. I hope this gets enough feedback this time to achieve promotion. Indrian (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I hope it does this time too. It'll complete the "Genesis trifecta", as I doubt Nomad, Meganet, or Channel will ever make it here due to lack of sufficient sources and things to say about them. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • We should not let personal feelings like those blockade the effort of bringing them here to see what we can't just maybe accomplish despite those things.--SexyKick 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, realistically, since those aren't going to be viewed as much as the others, we shouldn't take it as a given that they need to be FAs. (There are already more than enough for this to qualify as an FT, for what that's worth, anyway.) Tezero (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll do the images review for this, and a random source check during the next few days.--SexyKick 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Review from czar[edit]

In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This review is long overdue. I'm sorry for not catching it during its last FAC.

As much as possible, please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • Could save a few syllables by flipping "in Japan on December 12, 1991, in North America on October 15, 1992 ..." to "on December ... in Japan, October ... in North America, ..."
  • Avoid "seasons" such as "spring"
  • "Utilize" can almost always be "use", same for "allowed" to "let", "put", etc., "employ" → "use" or nothing at all
  • "allowed for larger games" clarify
  • I began to go this route, but make a connection between "larger games", "realism", and "Night Trap"—how one enabled the other (in the lede). If you need a source, see my edits on the Videogame Rating Council
  • "While it became known for several games such as Sonic the Hedgehog CD and Lunar: Eternal Blue" What is "it"? Sega CD? Because the games were anticipated or because the games sold and made it famous? cl (Also that sentence construction doesn't make much sense starting with "while")
  • "it was announced that Sega's support" by whom? Sega? If so, say so
  • What is "value for money"? Replay value? Lasting value of the console? Collector's value? Return on investment? cl
  • Try to avoid "-ing" (gerund) constructions at almost all costs—they were overused in the lede. The sentences you'll make will be tighter

Development

  • Way too much crammed into this first sentence: "Released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe ..." Keep a strong topic sentence for important ¶s
  • "Shortly after the release of the Mega Drive": is this to say the Japanese Genesis release? If so, say so
  • Likewise, clarify what's going on with Super Famicom/Super Nintendo names
  • "TurboGrafx-CD|PC Engine CD": why the latter instead of the former?
  • "that combined CD audio with visual graphics": what combined? the CD+G? the player? also this phrase can be clarified

Good work. I think the prose is capable of being better. See my review and compare my copyedit diff to see the recurring stuff I'm finding. I recommend reading the text out loud (maybe with every sentence twice) and asking whether every word is essential. That's one of the best ways to make the text tighter. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll continue and do a source review. I can also discontinue the review, if you prefer. I'm also looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar  00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Infinity Blade[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In Summer 2010, Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone, and Epic Games wanted to show that their upcoming iOS version of the Unreal Engine wasn't just good for tech demos- so they told a 12-person company they had just bought to make a game for a system they'd never developed for with an engine that wasn't finished yet, and to have a demo ready in 2 months and the game done in 5. No pressure! Presenting for your consideration Infinity Blade - if you saw an Apple advertisement in late 2010/early 2011 with a 3D game, it was this one, the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game that involved no birds at all, no matter their emotions. Passed as a GA by J Milburn in 2012, despite his FAC recommendation I hadn't touched it since until Hahc21 mentioned that we could take it to FAC together; I couldn't wait for him to be free once I realized that the article was a lot better than I remembered. I've rewritten/polished the entire article in the past couple weeks, so now the sentences are grammatically correct, the images are rationale'd, the links are archived, and everything should be ship-shape for what will hopefully be a double-first: the first FA about an iPhone game and my first FA that is neither an indie game nor a Final Fantasy game. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comments From "A version of..." onwards, the lead basically becomes an iteration of "On X date, Y product was released." Why don't you instead say what you've said so lucidly here, "Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone . . . the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game"?

The Legacy section should probably be renamed Sequels. Something's legacy is the influence it had, and how it is remembered; in this case, it is that Infinity Blade paved the way by proving that high-end iOS games could make truckloads of cash.—indopug (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if that's a well-documented statement about it, Infinity Blade's article should include something about its recognized influence. That's necessary for completeness at an FA level. Tezero (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not in the article because it's completely OR. If it was a well-documented statement then of course it would be in the article. I was just trying to make the nomination statement interesting. --PresN 23:10, 29 March 2014 (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, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Review archived to the talk page czar  00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded inline to Czar's comments; I'll give your article a review when I get a chance, though I might review some VG articles that are lower down the page first. --PresN 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The prose has a lot of "comma and" I edited a few into two sentences—not sure who is responsible for this, but wanted to point it out for future awareness
  • It was me, I like commas
I like commas too. Murder your darlings.
  • Consider splitting the gameplay and repetition parts into separate ¶ to avoid redundancy
  • It's only two sentences so I'd rather not; what do you see as redundant?
It's fine, but I meant a split in the last Reception ¶ so one would address gameplay and one would address redundancy, as they're separate ideas
  • I don't see why the novellas need to be named in the lede—they're garnish (not imperative to understanding the article)

Support on prose. I'm really contented with how the prose turned out. I need to move on to other things but ping me if you ever need an image review or source spot check (on this FAC or others) and I'll help out. And if anyone is interested, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC. czar  00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn[edit]

Glad to see this article made it to FAC!

  • "In the game, the player fights a series of one-on-one battles and journeys through a derelict castle in a fantasy world in order to fight the immortal God King." The player controls a character who does this. Perhaps you could also use this sentence to say who the character is?
  • "show off" is a little colloquial
  • In the lead, could we have a link for Unreal Engine?
  • Already linked in second sentence.
  • "It made US$1.6 million in four days and over US$23 million by the end of 2011." There's a tense switch here- perhaps you could go for "In the four days following its release, the game made US$1.6 million, and it had made over US$23 million by the end of 2011." My way's still not quite right- perhaps you could work something out?
  • "It was reviewed favorably by gaming critics. Reviews heavily praised the graphics, comparing the game favorably" Very repetitive
  • Is Infinity Blade: Redemption worth a redlink?
  • "as the player travels" Player character, not player
  • "Players can use two special abilities located at the top of the screen." The ability isn't at the top of the screen- presumably, you mean the abilities are activated by pressing a button at the top of the screen
  • You should probably link to Role-playing video game, rather than role-playing game
  • "The player is then given the option of either starting the next bloodline, or resetting the game and losing all gold and items, but maintaining their experience level, letting the player remaster the items and level up even further." I'm not sure I follow
  • "This expansion also added new equipment, enemies, and a new ending to the game where the player-character defeats an ancestor of his" Is this what you have already discussed?
  • "code libraries' lack of support" There are multiple code libraries?
  • "The five-month development was completed by a team of twelve people" As there's only 12, perhaps you could list them?
  • "an uncommon game based" Type of game? Style of gameplay? Something like that?
  • "and Nick Chester of Destructoid said that although the combat wasn't very complicated, it was fun to play." Is this a direct quote? There are no quote marks. If it's indirect, you shouldn't be using contractions
  • "The other role-playing game elements" Other?
  • "Destructoid called them "satisfying" and IGN said that they added to the game's difficulty. Eurogamer, however" Avoid personification (there are more later)
  • I switched to this because the review above said that just saying "Brown said blah" got confusing keeping track of who was who; what would you recommend?
  • Personally, I like it the "Brown said" way. I suppose you could go for "Destructoid's Brown said" or perhaps "Brown (Destructoid) said". J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "addicting" isn't a real word. Perhaps consider making it an indirect quote, and use addictive?
  • Sorry, tongue was in cheek. I agree it's generally accepted (in US English at least), but I think a lot of people (with good reason) don't consider it particularly good form. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How about "Sequels and spin-offs" for the section title?
  • "Like its predecessor, a novella by Brandon Sanderson set between Infinity Blade II and III, Infinity Blade: Redemption, was released on September 9, 2013." Instead of "Like its predecessor", how about "As before"?

Very nice looking article. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • All done; comments more substantive than "done" inline. (notification) Thanks for reviewing! (again) --PresN
  • The article's looking great- I'll be happy to support (pending the source check) apart from the hanging personification issue- I'll hold off for now and see where we end up. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Switched them all to "Destructoid's Brown" and "Brown of Eurogamer" and "Brown's review for Pocket Gamer", etc. (ping) --PresN 23:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, providing the source/image checks come back OK. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I was supposed to co-work and co-nom this but Flotilla got in the middle. However, I think that this article satisfies the FA criteria. → Call me Hahc21 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - There should be some comment on the game's financial performance.[17] Not sure if you can work this into the reception, but Kill Screen's review of the game is the best I've read. - hahnchen 23:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's about the series as a whole instead of just this game, though at the time the series was just the first two games, but added the "most profitable series" bit; the sales numbers were already in the article. I threw in the Kill Screen review, since I liked it, but I couldn't do much with it; while certainly clever, it doesn't actually say much new about the game itself- we already have 8 reviews that mention that the game is cyclical, with small, evolutionary changes between each bloodline. Its draw is that the "feel" of the review is similar to the "feel" of the game; that's not really paraphraseable in a review section of an encyclopedia article. You should try to get the magazine/website added to WP:VG/RS, though. --PresN 01:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Czar and Hahnchen - Czar, are you satisfied with the responses to your review? Hahnchen, are you willing to do a full review or support/oppose the nomination? --PresN 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded above czar  00:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1924 film Greed. It has been nominated twice before and got some great feedback. Alot of the unfinish feedback from the last nomination has been addressed, but I would like fresh suggestions before I or anyone else goes forward. Also, please give me more than four days between an oppose and closing the nomination.Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Laser brain was spot-on in his review during the last FAC, "the article is very good but needs some work on fit and finish".:

  • There are several awkward constructions. For eg, the word use is awkwardly employed to describe the director's stylistic choices: "von Stroheim used this ... von Stroheim used that".
  • The word film is overused, often several times in the same sentence. Replace some of these with "Greed" or "it".
I think this is taken care of. let me know if you think it needs more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When you have time go through the writing tutorials at this page, especially the redundancy-removal exercises. Eg: "Robert E. Sherwood also defended MGM's cutting of the film" and "The studio ordered June Mathis to cut it down further;[95] she assigned the job to an editor named Joseph Farnham, Farnham was a well-known "titles editor" who patched scenes together using title cards to keep continuity."
  • Cast: is this section necessary? There's also the Casting section, and you could just mention the relevant actor names in brackets after the characters in the Plot summary. Also, it isn't really Wikipedia's job to mention every last bit-part role and actor.
I'm looking through some FA film articles. Some have simple cast lists, others don't and include the cast in paragraph form. Personally I don't see what's wrong with the cast list, and I'm not totally sure what the official standards are.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Box office: the two-decimal-place dollar figures are far too detailed. In fact you could round it off to the nearest thousand to improve readability.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Myths and misconceptions: I don't think you should compile the myths surrounding the movie into one big section like this. Better would be a section/subsection for the different (real and mythic) versions of the films. Probably under the Release section. The Turner stuff from Legacy also belongs there. Further, von Stroheim's adaptation of McTeague and June Mathis's undeserved writing credit is neither myth nor misconception. The former belongs somewhere in Production, and the latter with the rest of Mathis's involvement in the Editing section. The sam
I just completely disagree.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacy: this is really the only disappointing section in a excellent article. It has a list of several directors and films influenced by this film, but it doesn't say why it was so great. Or how it inspired these filmmakers. Also, we know that initial reception was poor, when and why did later critics change their mind? ("by the 1950s it began to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made" is not really expanded upon) What exactly did retrospective reviewers, such as Ebert (and Kael, Siskel, Maltin etc?), say about the film?
There's a lot of stuff already in the article about how innovative Greed was—the use of deep focus 17 years before Kane comes to mind—that could be compiled here to make a strong case for how seminal it was.
  • References: you don't need a ref at the end of every sentence. You can often club them like this or also as recommended by WP:CITEBUNDLE.

That's it for me for now.—indopug (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I can work on some of these by this weekend. I strongly disagree with your comment on the Myths and Misconceptions section. One of the most notable aspects of Greed is the mystery of its lost footage. I can search for some more comtemporary (as in from the 1950s and 1960s) reviews. That's a great idea. But I'll work on this in a few days. Thanks for the comments.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll continue working on this through the week, I just need more time.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go over it very carefully tonight and add a Copy Edit tommorrow. I think that the legacy section is improved now. After I add the CE tommorrow I would love some feedback about the progress so far.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments I'm only about halfway through, to the "Themes" section.
  • There are few things in articles about artistic works that I appreciate more than proper background that runs a little before the creation of the work itself, because it anchors the reader in context about the artist. However, parts of the "Background and writing" leave me wondering what would be left to expand in von Stroheim's own biographical article. I'm thinking in particular of the extensive detail about his transferring studios. I feel that parts of the first three paragraphs could be condensed into one or two, although the full writing could be preserved on von Stroheim's own page.
  • I agree with you that separate casting and cast sections are fine. The text with full historical information has a different value than a systematic list, and different readers would have different purposes and could jump to either section depending on their interest.
  • I think certain sentences could be condensed or split for clarity. I would double-check for sentences that use semi-colons, passive voice or lots of dependent clauses because they can become difficult to follow. I don't have time right now to comb for these examples, but I may be able to perform a more thorough copyedit if you'd like. To take one example:
  • "Another point where von Stroheim conceded his initial vision came during shooting of the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler; there, the director's desire for authenticity in having a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt, and so a special-effect shot was used instead."
  • Could become...:
  • Von Stroheim also conceded his original vision when shooting the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler. The director insisted on authenticity, and wanted to have a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head. Von Stroheim was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt. A special-effect shot was used instead.
  • "He later said that he considered it the best role of his career." This sentence is ambiguous in its positioning within the paragraph and content, it needs a little more. Was the actor saying that the filming was fun? That the role was worthwhile despite the struggle? That the final result was excellent and/or he was proud of his performance? That he felt that von Stroheim's unconventional artistic direction was a fascinating experience?
  • The use of "feet" and "reels" to refer to the length of the film is confusing. That said, I like that you do it, because in historical terms you make it clear that this a historically accurate way to depict the contemporaneous terms that were used. However, I think that you probably need to reuse "note B" more often throughout and be consistent with conversions. For example:
  • "Despite his original contract stipulating that all films made by von Stroheim be under 8,500 feet, von Stroheim shot a total of 446,103 feet of footage for the film—running approximately 85 hours." We know how long the 446k reels runs, but about how long is the 8.5k?

I'll return to finish soon, hopefully by Friday. In the meantime, I have my own nomination up here that I don't feel bad about shamelessly plugging for critique. Give it a look if you can! Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've done a lot of work on this page and taken both of the contributing editors suggestions, although I still do not agree with changing the Cast or Myths and Misconceptions sections. It still may need anothe Copy Edit, but otherwise I'm open to more suggestions.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Flotilla (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Flotilla is a turn-based strategy space combat video game developed by Brendon Chung's video game studio, Blendo Games. It was released in 26 February 2010 for Microsoft Windows, and in 30 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. The game employs Microsoft's XNA game platform, and its development was influenced by cats and board games, such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. The game follows the player in an 30-minute adventure through a randomly generated galaxy. → Call me Hahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Comments from Tezero
  • I realize this may have been a contentious issue at GAN (I haven't checked), but why are there only two reviews listed? The table seems like a better place for them than the Reception text, which should probably be expanded a bit.
    • Mainly because I forgot. Updated table and expanded reception section.
  • "Gamers With Jobs" - decapitalize "With".
    • Done
  • "Allen Cook from Gamers With Jobs commented that Flotilla's gameplay setup worked 'as if Homeworld only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time.'" - I've never heard of Homeworld. Looks to be decently well-known among the strategy community, but I'd still prefer the game be introduced somehow. Perhaps "One reviewer compared Flotilla's gameplay setup to that of the 1999 real-time strategy game Homeworld if it "only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time."" would work more nicely.
    • Hmmm. Used your suggestion but with some slight changes.
  • "The challenges are tactical battles the player must fight against a variety of different enemies" - I realize that this is correct grammar, but it might be less awkward to add "in which" after "battles".
    • Done
  • "'tattooed chicken space pirates or crocodiles suffering from space madness.'" - I'd recommend paraphrasing the quote, as it's not clear who it's from and I really don't see anything too necessary about the precise wording.
    • Done
  • "heavier rear and back armor" - is there a difference between the two I'm not aware of?
    • Oops!
  • "has contributed to the development of" - I'd change "has" to "had" just so the article doesn't get out of date if Chung later works on significantly more successful games.
    • Done
  • "after Pandemic Studios was shut down and around 200 staff laid off by Electronic Arts" - this would sound more natural in active voice.
    • Changed it to "after 200 staff were laid out by Electronic Arts along with the closure of Pandemic Studios." Help needed :)
  • "The prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game" - I was under the impression that Flotilla was 2D. If not, please explain otherwise earlier.
    • Nope. Flotilla is 3D. Let me explain that in gameplay.
  • "The game includes a limited length of play time in the solo mode" - you've already said this. Knot it somewhere into the next sentence.
    • Done
  • "The patch introduced a new "hardcore" mode that could be played without time limits." - again, redundant. Just change it to something like "This was the inspiration for Flotilla's hardcore mode", and use that as either a new sentence or a semicolon-ed extension of the previous sentence.
    • Went with "and a new "hardcore" mode was introduced"
  • (image) "each 30 seconds" - change "each" to "every".
    • Done
  • Is GameFAQs a reliable source for release dates? I recall some murmurs about that not long ago. If not, I expect you could find a "Flotilla releases this Thursday"-type articles from IGN or something.
    • Let me check.
  • Is Gaming Daily a reliable source? It seems to have hidden among the bushes at WP:VG/RS. I've heard of it and no ill thoughts spring at me, but it's worth questioning.
    • I think it is. I've never seen problems with it, though I can ask around just in case.

The article looks great otherwise. Tezero (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! → Call me Hahc21 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: To be clear, I'll support the candidacy if you can provide an answer about the sources. I notice you've edited a bit since I made these comments, so I just wanted to remind you. Tezero (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: I already removed GameFAQs. I have yet to make my mind about GamingDaily. @Sven Manguard: what do you think about Gaming Daily? is it reliable? → Call me Hahc21 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I checked GamingDaily's about page from the time that the article was written. They had a general editor, a deputy editor, and three writers. I am unimpressed with what I could find on the credentials of the general editor (link to his blog) and even less impressed with the (apparent lack of) credentials of the person that wrote the review (link to his blog). The review itself is passable, but not great.
The issue with removing GamingDaily is that everywhere GamingDaily is used as a source, Gamers with Jobs is also used as a source. Like the GamingDaily review, I found the Gamers with Jobs review passable but not great. However, I found no indication that the person writing the review was a staff writer, and more problematically, found no indication that Gamers with Jobs has editorial policies/oversight.
I'd say remove them both, but that would leave a majority of the Gameplay section unsourced. I would say remove Gamers with Jobs, but that would leave the section heavily dependent on the review from GamingDaily. Ultimately, I am going to decline to give a recommendation. These are not sources that I would use if I were writing an article, but I write articles on XBLA games, where better sources are readily available. You would be better served asking for advice from someone that works in indie game articles, and has a better feel for what level of quality and formal editorial control is acceptable in that area. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I think you'd want PresN (talk · contribs). Tezero (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero:: Addressed all, I think (source replacement on the way). More comments? :) → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah. Support: I trust that you'll find acceptable sources and, well, if you don't, someone else will oppose on source quality. My other concerns are all addressed. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Still need to do a full review, but here's a short source review, unindented:

Source review by PresN
  • To answer the above question: GameFAQs is not a reliable source for anything, including release dates- they're user-generated. Unfortunately, since they share databases, that makes GameSpot game landing pages non-reliable sources as well. That said, you don't usually need sources for dates in the infobox; they're not likely to be challenged. Just for future reference; what you have now is fine.
  • If you stick |deadurl=no in your citations, it makes the main link the quick-loading live url, not the archive
  • Gaming Daily - I'm... going to go with non-RS on this. There's no indication that they pay the writers, do any editorial control, exist primarily on their own writing rather than whatever they can get people to submit for free, even have a backing company, etc. Their "write for us" page is dead, but the archive gives no indication either. If you could find any use of their stuff as a source by RS's, or confirmation that they did fact-checking/editing on articles, or prove Paul Millen's personal notability, then you'd be good.
  • Gamers with Jobs - I feel a bit better about this one, but it's still on the wrong side of the line- a nicer layout and a larger userbase is the only difference. Same deal- find usage of their stuff by RS's, contact them and get them to say that they don't just post whatever, prove Allen Cooks' personal notability, etc.
  • SquareGo - As an interview, I'm fine with it.
  • FidGit - Link Tom Chick and Sci Fi Channel (United States), please
  • The rest seems fine.
  • Source you might want to use: large bit-tech review (professional, owned by Dennis Publishing)

--PresN 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

    • @PresN: I have addressed all. I will read the Bit-Tech one this week and add it. → Call me Hahc21 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Media review by Sven Manguard

This article has three images. Two images are freely licensed, and one is non-free.

File:Flotilla Coverart.png is a non-free image. It meets the NFCC and has an appropriate FUR
File:Flotilla - combat (Blendo Games).jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing. There is no evidence that the account that released the images is Blendo's official Flickr (and no link to it in the media section of the official website), but no evidence to the contrary either.
File:Brendon Chung at GDC 2012.jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing.

I have written to the studio to confirm that the Flirkr account is legitimate, and also to ask for the first image to be released under a free license. As it stands, this article passes media review regardless. This is not a support vote for the article; I don't do those. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sven Manguard: All these images were given by Brendong Chung after Masem contacted him during the FAC candidacy of Gravity Bone. Maybe Masem can help confirm that. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the account is legit. I knew Brendan via the Shacknews website and helped guide him how to up these to flickr and license them for our use. If needed, I can submit to ORTS the message chain for that. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks! Though I admit I'm jealous. → Call me Hahc21 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The email is already sent. I was unaware of the Masem connection. An OTRS record verifying that the Flickr account is official would be a good thing to have, if it's not too much trouble. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21, Masem: - My contact with Blendo Games has been a success. We now have freely licensed cover art for six of his games (including this one), and there is an OTRS ticket on file confirming the authenticity of the Flickr account. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. 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, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Review from czar
In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.

  • copyedit done, in lieu of small suggestions. Some things: "Raindrop" goes in quotes per its own article, direct quotes need immediate citations, I removed some ambiguities, WP uses logical quotation with punctuation almost always outside the quotations
  • Could use more gameplay summary in lede. More can be added to show why the game was notable.
  • The purpose of the Gamers with Jobs quote is ambiguous—is he describing Homeworld or Flotilla and why is the quote preferable to just paraphrasing his point?
  • Coop mode uses a single controller? Clarify
    • Done
  • The relevance of the id Tech 2 experience isn't clear
    • Removed
  • There is a bit of excessive quoting in the Gameplay section. If it can be made more concise through paraphrase, that's the way to go
    • In the gameplay section? I think you meant Reception no?
  • Steam redlink
    • Already fixed.
  • The Reception section is a little weak. Why is every reviewer listed in order with its numerical score instead of leading a discussion of the game's major sticking points and points of praise? More can be said by way of paraphrase and apart from the "X gave it # of # and added, QUOTE" format. If multiple reviewers referred to its charm, that can be grouped together in a single sentence.
  • "but criticized the multiplayer mode": if it's worth mentioning this criticism in the first place, it would be worth mentioning what about it he criticized; matchmaking criticism could be cleaned up too
  • What did Mike Rose say about the game?
    • Nothing remarkable. I thought about adding something but Rose only did a brief summary of the game etc.
  • That Miller quote had two typos [his, not yours] in it... is Gaming Daily reliable? (WP:VG/RS)
    • Removed, replacing now.
  • Thank you for using list-defined refs
    • I love them as much as I love order. It keeps the sections readable.
  • Release information is not cited in the article (stuff in the lede should be cited within the article)
    • According to PresN, this is not needed anywhere, but I already cited it in the infobox (maybe you didn't see it)
  • Is there no mention of how this game relates to Chung's later works? No influence or confluence of style?
    • Not at all, sadly. Such type of analysis only exists to his Citizen Abel series of games (Gravity Bone, Thirty Flights of Loving, Quadrilateral...)
  • "in 29 March 2014" constructions should change "in" to "on"
    • I always get confused with those. Non-native speaker problems.

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar  18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Czar:: Addressed some. → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I reworked the Reception section. However, since this is a not-so-famous indie game, there not much that can be done to expand it more. Do you have any more comments? I'd like to know if I have addressed them all. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unaddressed: there is no gameplay summary in lede, more can be done to show why the game is notable in lede, comment about multiplayer mode criticism. I still think more of the direct quotations can be struck and paraphrased.
  • I don't know where PresN said the release date doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, and I wouldn't say it's a rule, but this would mean that there is no coverage of the game's actual release in the article (other than professional reviews, not the release itself). In a FA? Why? There is also nothing on porting the game, or the non-simultaneous release? (Also the infobox dates appear to be out of order.)
  • Minor concern, but I don't know why Space Piñata is mentioned in the lede. It's fine with just the description
  • (Another minor concern: I don't know what's up with the "no include" tags on this review page. The FAC page specifically asked not to use semicolons.)
  • I don't understand why dmy became mdy. I see a strong nat ties argument in the edit summaries, but I think WP:RETAIN takes precedent over the extremely unimportant (not mentioned in the article once) fact that Blendo is based in the US.
  • Clarifications can still be made to the Gameplay—what is randomly generated (at least link it?) Is there one "the player" or multiple "players" in the Gameplay explanation. I still don't really know how the Gameplay works. Is there a 30-second time limit to enter commands that are then executed in unison? Is the window for movement only open every 30 seconds (briefly) and the movement happens simultaneously? We need much more info about how the controls and core mechanics work.
  • The prose has become chunkier in the flurry of edits since I last touched the article. Could use a copyedit. Some examples: mixed punctuation inside/outside quotation marks (mentioned in original copyedit notes above), "Before Flotilla, Chung worked on a prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game called Space Piñata, whose gameplay and structure were similar to those of the final version of Flotilla." → "similar in gameplay and structure to the final Flotilla release" and I'd also turn the comma parenthetical to an em dash parenthetical for readability, "Flotilla has a cooperative mode that can be played with an additional Xbox 360 controller, as well as a split-screen multiplayer mode." → "has cooperative and split-screen multiplayer modes that can", etc. I wouldn't say the prose is at 1a professional brilliance yet. I already gave it a look earlier (I wanted to just come back to support) but I'm out of time, so it's someone else's turn to copyedit.
  • I have to oppose on these quality concern grounds, though I think they're surmountable. I don't want the opp to put the nom in danger, so please ping me to do the copyedit on a weekend if you absolutely can't get anyone else to do it. czar  14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Drive-by review from Chris857
  • "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude, in its score." - in my opinion, this would read more naturally as "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music in its score, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude." Chris857 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chris857: Tweaked. Cheers! → Call me Hahc21 20:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Review from JimmyBlackwing

Some stuff I noticed, written as I read through the article from top to bottom.

  • Is it necessary to include all of its exact release dates in the lead? The infobox has those handled. Perhaps change it to the slicker, easier-to-read, "It was released in March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows and on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360."
  • Done.
  • Coming into this article as someone who has never even heard of this game, the line in the lead about its development being "influenced by cats" is incoherent to me. What about cats was used as an influence? Their fur? Their sleeping habits? Going to need some clarification.
  • This is not clear in the source either. However, I have emailed Brendon to know if he can expand a bit on this.
  • While it would be interesting to find out what he meant, we'll need a reliable, verifiable reference if that information is to be used in an article. An email does not qualify as a reliable, verifiable reference. I think it would be best to remove the cats mention, because it's too confusing and meaningless as it stands.
  • Actually, I disagree. We can treat his email as a primary source (it is a detail about how the game was developed, so all info about it comes from a primary source, even if published by a third-p source) and add the information to the article. Since the cats thing was used for DYK, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove it from the article.
  • Also, some redundancy in the first paragraph: the last two sentences begin with "The game", and the second-to-last sentence uses both "development" and "developed". Maybe change "development" to "design".
  • Done.
  • The second paragraph states that Chung developed Flotilla immediately after Pandemic shut down. The use of the word "developed" makes it sound like the game was made in a day. Perhaps "Chung began developing Flotilla" would be better.
  • Done.
  • What was Space Pinata a prototype of, and who made it? It's not clear.
  • It was just a game prototype, developed by Chung. Clarified.
  • Also, as a general rule, formulations such as ", and used" or ", and was included" should be ", and it used" or ", and it was included"—when discussing an object, that is.
  • Will have in mind, thanks!
  • What is a non-playable opponent? Is this is same thing as an artificially intelligent opponent? If that's the case, then I recommend the latter wording, as it's clearer.
  • Changed to The game lets the player and opponents (controlled by the game's artificial intelligence) issue orders...
  • There are a lot of unnecessary words here: "usually given no more than a few ships to control". Try, "usually controls less than X ships", where X is replaced by the relevant number. To remain grammatically correct after this change, the second half of the sentence will have to begin ", which may be".
  • The problem is that your suggestion is not accurate. The player is given no more than a few ships to control at the beginning of the game, but they can eventually control more ships later. However, I did not specify this either. I tweaked the sentence now. Take a look.
  • Thanks for the clarification. I tweak the wording of the new version a bit, but, aside from that, it looks good.
  • "fixed duration" can be changed to "duration".
  • Done.
  • Instead of "a new randomly generated galaxy is created and filled with planets and enemy ships", try "a new galaxy is randomly generated and filled with planets and enemy ships".
  • Done.
  • I don't understand the sentence regarding tutorials. Does the player have to play a tutorial each time he or she begins an adventure? Also, what does the tutorial teach?
  • Tweaked. It teaches the basic gameplay stuff.
  • If "all planets offer a possible quest", then there is a single quest offered by all planets collectively. Try, "Each planet offers a possible quest".
  • Fixed.
  • You write that Flotilla's single-player mode is a "single adventure" that must be replayed; yet, lower down, you write that "a new chapter is added to the player's character's story" upon victory. I don't understand how these two things fit together.
  • Victory there refers to each challenge within a single playthrough. These are then reset when a new adventure is started. However, the game keeps track of the player's score in each playthrough at the scoreboard.
  • I see it now. I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding.
  • You need to merge the challenge-related information at the end of the second paragraph with that at the beginning of the third. As it stands, you explain what a challenge is after you've told us everything else about it. I recommend that you introduce a line break after "being able to freely explore the galaxy", and that you begin the third paragraph like so:
  • Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player. Challenges are tactical battles in which the player must defeat a certain number of enemy ships. However, ships can only be harmed from behind or below; attacks from any other position will be countered by the ships' shields. Upon succeeding, a new chapter is added to the player's character's story, and the player is awarded with ship upgrades.
  • Tweaked.
  • I don't understand this: "the player may not receive the same upgrade by playing the same encounter in two different adventures." Again, you wrote that the single-player mode is a "single adventure". I'm not sure how a single adventure can be "two different adventures", or how the same encounter can play out twice in a randomly generated galaxy.
  • I think that my removing of the word "single" solved this point. it is not a "single adventure," and I still don't know what I meant by it. Anyways, it's gone :)
  • How can Chung develop a game "under his video game studio"? Was he developing it in his basement? I'm not sure what this means.
  • Woah forgot to tweak wording on Dev. Done.
  • "Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed." -- "He started coding Flotilla in 2009, after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios and laid off 200 members of that company's staff."
  • Went with Crisco's suggestion. I don't see why mentioning that 200 staff was laid is important for this game.
  • "a set of tools focused on video game development created by Microsoft." -- "a set of game development tools created by Microsoft."
  • Done.
  • Even in the Development section, the line about cats makes no sense. Definitely need to rework that with more explanation.
  • Let's see what Chung says about it!
  • Was Space Pinata the game that he began developing after Pandemic closed, or was he developing it as a side project while working at Pandemic? As it stands, it's unclear.
  • We don't know when he developed Space Piñata. We only know that it happened before Flotilla.
  • "acknowledged that the games was" should be "acknowledged that the game was".
  • Good catch.
  • "elaborated that althought" should be "elaborated that although".
  • Good catch x2
  • "but concluded that it was however a "sadly disposable" experience" -- the "however" is unnecessary.
  • Already done (by Crisco I suppose)
  • "Joe Martin from Bit-Tech named Flotilla a " hilarious and brazenly original" game." -- Flotilla is not italicized here, and there's a space separating the quotation mark from "hilarious".
  • Oops!
  • "though concluded" -- "though he concluded"
  • Done.
Thanks for the comments! → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Technical notes

  • Do you have issue numbers for the Edge, PC Zone, PC Gamer US and PC Gamer UK reviews? Also, I'm fairly certain that the titles of those articles were not all "Flotilla review"--and that three out of four of those magazines list reviewer names.
  • Let me use my magical-and-resourceful skill to find these. I was not able to do it at first but I admit I was lazy.
  • JimmyBlackwing: Got the PC Gamer US one. However, the UK one, as well as the PC Zone and Edge ones are really though. Edge is issue 214, but I have been unable to get the name of the reviewer. I asked Future Publishing about it (Edge and UK). PC Zone, I think it is issue number 222. The last issue (225) was released in September, so the May one should be 222. I originally took these reviews from Metacritic, though.
  • Edge reviews have always been anonymous. I added the PCGUK issue number--and I think you should add the PC Zone number you found. I'll let the rest slide, I suppose.
  • Flotilla should be italicized in each reference.
  • Done.
  • If you provide an archive for a URL that is still online, remember to include "deadurl=no" in the citation template. The SquareGo and Kotaku links are still live, and others might be as well.
  • I think this was pointed out to me, can't remember when. I'll do it soon.
  • The cover needs alt text.
  • The alt text parameter has been deprecated from the {{Infobox video game}} template. I can't add it :(
  • I wasn't aware of this. Oh well.

Aside from that, it looks fairly solid. I don't know enough about the game to judge the article's completeness, but I've helped with enough indie game articles to know that the average number of available sources is low. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I ran through the article with a little follow-up copyediting, and the prose seems solid enough now. Once you get the last of the technical stuff sorted out, I'll be willing to support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The deadurl business still needs to be taken care of. Also, I made a comment about the cats line above that I think you might have missed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Took care of the deadurl thing. The one about cats, I commented above. → Call me Hahc21 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Support, then. Good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Crisco comments
  • Since this is an American game, shouldn't we be using Month-Day-Year?
    • Oh well, I use this date format on every article I write. it is consistent with the format used in my country and language. I admit that I hate the MM-DD-YYYY formats (I mean 12-1-2011, for example). I wouldn't mind using the expanded one though.
      • I meant the expanded one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh well, I never use it mostly because I dislike the additional comma. Though I wouldn't mind if it's changed. → Call me Hahc21 04:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the box art of Chung's other games has also been released under a CC license (in case you missed that)
    • Still can't believe it.
  • 29 March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows, and on 25 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. - wouldn't it be best to go in chronological order?
    • Chopped the days off the lead, so this is a bit moot.
  • by cats and board games such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. - I feel like this can be rephrased, like using "as well as" rather than "and" in front of board games.
    • Done.
  • single-player mode is framed as a single adventure - any way to avoid repeating "single"?
    • Removed the "single" from "single adventure". It was nonsense and inaccurate!
  • Full Spectrum Warrior and Lord of the Rings: Conquest. - years?
    • Added.
  • Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed. - why not just "after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios"
    • Done.
  • How did cats influence this????
    • Good question. Asked Chung to see if he can clarify a bit more :)
  • Charge Shot - what makes this review worth noting?
    • I mostly use the reference for gameplay details, so I saw no issue by adding it to the Reception section too.
  • Did Chung include a manual or little bits of information like in Thirty Flights of Loving? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. At least the version I own of the game does not have one. → Call me Hahc21 04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)I asked him about this too.
  • Looks like we're just waiting on the cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Audie Murphy[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most decorated American combat soldiers of World War II. He also had a successful career as a film actor. This article has passed GA review, and also A-Class review at WP Military history. It has been further polished in the ensuing months to prepare it for FAC. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: On the basis of a swift glance this looks an interesting, comprehensive and well written article. Sadly, Murphy's profile in the UK, at least to my generation, is virtually non-existent, and I am at a loss to understand why so interesting a man is so little known here. I hope to give the article more solid review attention, but meanwhile here is a handful of minor points/observations:

  • I am always uneasy to see a paragraph that ends without a citation (see Southern and southeastern France). In this case the solution is simple – flip the sentence: "Along with the other individual soldiers who took part in the action he received the Presidential Unit Citation[51]."
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As myself the son of an army man, I'm astonished that Murphy, even in wartime, could achieve the rank of Staff Sergeant at the age of 18-and-a-bit. These accelerated promotions seem extraordinary; was Murphy's case in any way typical?
I don't know what was typical for the US Army in WWII. In some cases it might have been a result of performance. But during WWII, the Army probably took a look around at who was available to shoulder a given responsibility, and slapped a promotion on them. That happened just hours preceding his Medal of Honor action at Holtzwihr (Colmar Pocket). The reason of that has been edited out as FAC prep necessitated paring down the article. What happened there, is that the other officers of his company had been killed. He was the only officer still standing, so they made him company commander. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Cutting in here. It would have been extraordinary in the Old Army, but not during World War II. When the squad size was increased from 8 to 12 in 1941, the squad leader was made a sergeant, with a corporal as second in command. The platoon sergeants then became staff sergeants. Multiplied across nearly 300 infantry regiments, this created a requirement for 25,000 sergeants. In 1943, a further increase occurred, with the platoon sergeants becoming technical sergeants, the squad leaders becoming staff sergeants and the deputy squad leaders becoming sergeants. In December 1941 one in five enlisted men was an NCO; by June 1945 nearly half were. Coupled with casualties in the front line infantry platoons that reached 90% at times, one's chance of making staff sergeant was excellent so long as you stayed alive — which Murphy would tell you was the real trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the difference between the Standby Reserve and the US Army Reserve?
The Texas National Guard is a component of the U.S. Army Reserve forces. During Audie's period of service with the Guard, it went through a lot of restructuring, and change of terminology. "Standby Reserve" is merely a status within the Army/Guard. His service records show him transferring to "inactive" status in 1951, and in 1952 the Army began calling that Ready Reserve, which I believe had both "active" and "inactive" components. When he first entered the Guard, he was actively involved in training troops. Then he went to inactive due to his movie commitments, but he could have been called up at any time. When he transferred to Standby Reserve in 1966, it meant the Army/Guard took into consideration his value to the civilian community, and while he still could have been called up it was less likely to happen. Somewhat confusing, but about what terminology they used to define his status in any given time. His 1969 retirement from the U.S. Army reserve was just that - a complete retirement from military service.— Maile (talk) 13:1, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the British Army this was called the Reserve of Officers. They had completed their service with the colours in the regulars or the TA, and had no training obligations, but remained available for call up in the event of mobilisation. For this they were paid a small amount each month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "His relationship with director Budd Boetticher began..." To the casual reader this wording sounds equivocal; I would qualify (e.g. "working relationship") or reword
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Footnote "i" needs futher citation
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've not done a sources check, but Ref 23 looks as though it should be pp. not p.
Done. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all I can offer for the moment, though as indicated I hope to return. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have taken care of everything you mentioned above. Thanks for your input.— Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • To Hell and Back caption needs editing for formatting
Done. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg, File:Croix_de_guerre_1939-1945_with_palm_(France)_-_ribbon_bar.png, File:BEL_Croix_de_Guerre_1944_ribbon.svg, File:Texas_Legislative_Medal_of_Honor_Ribbon.svg - what is the copyright status of the original design? Compare the licensing used for the other ribbons
Removed all ribbons from infobox due to licensing concerns above. It didn't look right if some had ribbons and some didn't, so I removed them all.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment There are no copyright concerns. Medal ribbon design do not reach he threshold of originality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case I've restored all the ribbons to the infobox. Thanks for the information.— Maile (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Memorial_Audie_Murphy_-_Holtzwihr.jpg: the source site given has a copyright notice on it - what evidence is there to support the given licensing tag?
Removed this entirely. This was inserted by a red link editor several weeks ago. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Moh_army_mil.jpg as a 3D work, the licensing needs to reflect the copyright status of both the medal itself and the photo thereof.
I swapped this out with a different image from Commons. Check the one I inserted. It was the only Army one I could find that actually identifies its origin.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope I've answered your concerns.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Oppose for now. Sorry, I hate to oppose, but this needs quite a lot of work. I'm also astonished that this chap isn't better known on this side of the Atlantic and I'd love to see this become an FA. However:

  • The prose is choppy, to the point of being nigh unreadable in places. Far too many short sentences, and they all seem to start with "Murphy" or "he".
Edits have been done.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the grammar is sloppy, to the point that in at least one place (His first met director Budd Boetticher began when) it quite literally doesn't make sense.
See below on this specific instance. — Maile (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You have a habit of using nouns and dates as adjectives, which makes the article difficult to read; I've tweaked a few of these using several different methods for variety, so you might want to look through my edits.
Edits have been done by another editor.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)p
  • The chronology is confusing
I completely disagree with the chronology as "confusing". It's pretty much like it was after the A-class review from WP Military History. And they were very picky that it needed to have a chron flow. It does, and flows in chronological order. Dates are mentioned where relevant. The only place the chron differs is in the "Film career" section, which seems to be what you don't care for. Again, I refer you to the talk page for part of that answer. The film career section generally follows a chron order. But in his case, it was often more important and more interesting to the reader to group films with people he worked with repeatedly. Directors, producers and writers were more important to what helped make his film career than a dull "...he made such-and-such film....then the next year he made so-and-so film...then the next year..." Personally, I think it's more confusing to flip back and forth looking for, as an example, what films he made with Jesse Hibbs. As for Wanda Hendrix, she didn't figure into his film career until the Alan Ladd movie. That was the place to explain who she was to the reader. It has a good flow, IMO. Just not so cut-and-dried that it reads like a list.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • quite often there's no date given for a particular event and the reader is left scratching their head
You might want to give examples. Dates are where they need to be. If you think something has been left out, please cite them here.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You introduce significant facts out of order, eg Wanda Hendrix, whom he had been dating since (in a paragraph about 1948), Wanda Hendrix, who by that time had become his wife
See my answer above in the chronology.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The article tends towards praising Murphy in parts. His achievements are doubtless heroic, but let the reader come to that conclusion themselves. For example, watch words like "just" and "only".
Your examples puzzle me. What are you seeing? I don't see that either you or any other editor has removed "just" or "only".
  • A Search comes up with "just" in one place: "a large granite marker was erected just off the Appalachian Trail"
  • A Search comes up with "only" here: "stopped only after he ran out of ammunition"; "The only film Murphy made in 1952"; and in reference to his poems "Only two others survived"
I don't see how "just" or "only" is used in the article to praise Murphy.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the article suffers from over-compression in some parts and under-compression in others; for example, a great deal is made of campaign medals that were awarded to hundreds of thousands of men, whereas details on the actions which earnt him gallantry awards are relatively sparse.
Well, there used to be more. But what happened to that can be found on the article's talk page.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, since you posted this there have been some recent edits from an FA-level editor. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A minor issue, but I think you could consolidate some of the sections and reduce the number of headings.
I see you have already reduced the headings. Your edit that changed the heading "Military service" to "World War II service" is an improvement. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Some more specific commentary:

  • Murphy dropped out of school in fifth grade and got a job picking cotton for $1 a day to help support the family and became skilled with a rifle, hunting small game to help feed them. Bit of a run-on sentence with the to "and"s
  • How did his mother die?
It's never been said, as far as anything I can find.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Cause of death has now been inserted into the article.— Maile (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • he and two other soldiers were ambushed by German machine-gun fire, one of them fatally Can one be "fatally ambushed"?
Well, one of them died in the ambush, so for him it was fatal. The others lived, so it wasn't a fatal ambush for them. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Reworded by recent editing.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Murphy was promoted to sergeant on December 13 Did he go directly from private to sergeant? None of the junior NCO ranks are mentioned above.
Actually, in the paragraph before that it says he was promoted to Corporal on July 15. And the paragraph before that one says he made Private First Class on May 7. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to include the various merit badges, such as the Marksman/Expert/Combat Infantryman badges? These aren't decorations for bravery etc, and most American infantrymen would have them. Should we focus on the more important awards?
Dicey choice to make, but I understand what you are saying. After all, the honors and awards are now a Featured List on their own. The article's history is full of edit wars over Murphy not getting recognition for every little thing. He has a hard-core base of supporters who aren't willing to give an inch. And Wikipedia is also open to their editing. One of the most heated topics among those is "most decorated" v. "one of the most decorated". Right now, things have stabilized. I think the real question is whether or not we want to eliminate mention of all but the valor awards, thereby guaranteeing the article will dissolve into an edit war.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Murphy advanced alone [...] Along with the other individual soldiers who took part Which is it?
Perhaps you were confused because two different dates of action appear in that paragraph. And,yes, the dates are there in chronological order. The "advanced alone" part happened after they came ashore during the August 15 landing. The last two sentences of that paragraph very clearly puts a different date on what you are referring to Murphy was part of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment participation in the August 27–28 offensive at Montélimar that secured the area from the Germans. Along with the other soldiers who took part in the action, he received the Presidential Unit Citation.— Maile (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "earning" the right word to use in the context of the Purple Heart? Presumably it's not intended to be a reward for getting injured (per se)
All instances of this have been changed. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • He sustained a leg wound during his stand and only after he ran out of ammunition. Only after he ran out of ammunition ... what? It feels like there was something there, but it's been removed, leaving just the fragment.
The word "stopped" was missing, and I reinserted it. For the record, before all that glut of editing back in Jan/Feb, this is what that sentence originally said:
For an hour, Murphy stood on the tank destroyer returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, during which he sustained a leg wound. He stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Thank you for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the point of the decorations section? We've established that he was astonishingly well decorated; shouldn't we just mention the most important ones and refer readers to the daughter article for the full list? Not least since several of these were awarded to just about every American soldier who fought in WWII and so aren't really significant, unlike the MoH and the Silver and Bronze stars.
Well, I can't explain what I didn't create. That second was set up by a different editor during the "improvements" to get it to FAC. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to my answer to your question of "Do we really need to include the various merit badges". I would also refer you to FA Douglas MacArthur as an example. Such a section seems in keeping with FA. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They never cast Murphy in a movie and a personal disagreement ended the association. I've put a {{when?}} tag on that
I took care of this as soon as I saw the tag.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So you did. My apologies.
  • The partnership fell into disagreement That's a strange construction. Why not just "they fell out" or similar
I think we might be looking at this as British language usage v. American. Partnerships that "fall into disagreement" is OK as far as I'm concerned. And if you do a search on Wikipedia for articles that contain the phrase "fell into disagreement" you will see a lot of instances of its use. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This sentence in the article has been edited differently by another editor, and I'm OK with the editing on it.— Maile (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The 1950s ended with Murphy doing three westerns. That's a really horrible construction. There are lots of different ways you can say what you're trying to say, almost any of which are preferable.
Reworded with recent editing. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • His first met director Budd Boetticher began when Murphy requested to be his boxing partner at Terry Hunt's Athletic Club wtf?
This was a typo, and it's been corrected now. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I stopped at the end of the "Film career" section, because there's too much to list everything here; I've done quite a bit of copy-editing as I've gone through, but it needs attention from somebody familiar with the subject and the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comments here. And not any excuses, but an explanation of some hunks of what you see. If you read the talk page on the article, you should see part of it. Several seasoned editors agreed to help out, and then didn't except for a tweak here and there. A couple started to do more, and then abandoned it. with no explanation and no response when I repeatedly tried to initiate contact. The film section literally got copied and edited down from Film career of Audie Murphy, torn up and reworked. The military section used to be more but was split off by someone else, and I tried to work with what is left. It's been quite a history of false starts on editing help. Of course, on the other hand, it's come a million miles since a year ago. The chronology and dates used to have a great flow after the WP Military History A-class review. But then...there's that talk page stuff.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look. But it's 2am here, so it won't be right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I do appreciate what you have done. It's been bit disheartening to me that I've tried every avenue I can think of, both online at WP and in emails, to get editing help with his. While there has been some helpful editing, it's often been a case of getting help/advice of going one direction, and the next go-round of editing help is telling me to do a U-turn and go back the other direction. That, and it seems that the more experienced at WP tend to be touchy and disappear in the blink of the eye with no explanation. So, for what you have done here, and anything else you might do, thank you.— Maile (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In your edits you uncapped all mentions of "Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster" and "Oak Leaf Cluster". I have reverted those changes. Per pg. 18 of the United States Army Style Guide, these are specific awards that are supposed to be capitalized. Improperly uncapping awards has triggered edit wars in the article's history.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also reverted your edit of changing "the Guard" to "the guard". Per the United States Government Printing Office Manual of Style, Chapter 4, "the Guard" is correct.— Maile (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, I think I might have confused you with a recent edit summary on this article. It was not intentional, and I didn't realize until I looked at the dab for GPO that it could have many meanings. In the United States, it is the official government acronym of the United States Government Printing Office, and I was referring to the above-mentioned manual.— Maile (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sultanate of Singgora[edit]

Nominator(s): Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Sultanate of Singora -- a little-known sultanate that existed in the deep south of Thailand until the late 1600s. The sultanate was ruled by a family of Persians. In my opinion, this is one of the most comprehensive English language accounts of the sultanate ever written. ( Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC) )

Comment – Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the article go through a "good article" review before it can become a featured article candidate? Madalibi (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  • No, it does not have to. Some recommend it, but there is no requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sultante_of_singora.png: what is the source of this image? What data sources / base maps were used to create it? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It's either a modified version of an image taken from Wikipedia or one sent to me by a Thai government department. I think it's probably the latter, but can't be certain. I altered it in Photoshop and added the text. ( Singora (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC) )
      • The base map appears to be identical to Hdamm's series of SVG maps of Thailand. (See File:Amphoe Songkhla.svg.) It's CC-BY-SA licensed, so the image description will need to mention the original. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
        • OK. How do I do that? ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
          • Just edit the file description page on Commons and mention Hdamm as the original author and link to the original source files. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Done. I've linked to the guy's Songkhla graphic, credited him as the author and put in the CC-BY-SA permission.
  • Is it Singgora or Singora?—indopug (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It can be either. On the Wikipedia page Sultan, it's listed at the very bottom as Singgora. Some of the English language signs near the forts render it as Singkhora. The name Singora is more common, though.
    • ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
  • If Singora is more common, then you should move this to Sultanate of Singora. As it is, it is quite jarring to see Singgora in the title and the infobox, but Singora everywhere else.—indopug (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. How would I do this? As stated, I only started using the SINGGORA page because that's what someone else had set up. It was just an empty page back at the beginning of January, but I always knew it wasn't ideal. Note too that a few pages on Wikipedia link to my article, so I guess you'd need a kind of re-direct to the new page. Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
One more point: I just added a NOTE to the bottom of the page which mentions Singora's alternative spellings (ie, Singgora and Singkhora). Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just removed all instances of SINGGORA from the infobox. If someone can show me how to set up a re-direct, I'll move everything to Sultanate of Singora Singora (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next time when you need to, point to the drop-down menu next to the search box (if you're using the default skin) and select "Move". The redirect will be created automatically. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This is definitely better. Singora (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - taking a look now. Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd start in the lead by stating what it was (sultanate/kingdom/self-governing body in X century) rather than saying it was the precursor of Sonkhla in the first sentence.
I think it's actually quite important to make the link between Singora and Songkhla at the beginning of the article. Present-day sources sometimes refer to it as "ancient Songkhla" or "the old town at Khao Daeng". Other sources use the names interchangeably.
For example, see page 35 of this PDF: [[18]]. I use this source in the article, by the way, but link to the government website instead of SCRIBD. The text reads "Sultan Syleyman Shah governed Singgora city (Song Khla) 400 years ago". This sentence is also pertinent to the question above re: Singora or Singgora.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
OK, I just changed the first sentence in the lead. It now reads The Sultanate of Singora was a short-lived city-state in southern Thailand and precursor of the present-day town of Songkhla.
Singora (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Perfect . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, we don't use article names in heading titles, hence The Singora legacy would be fine as Legacy.
Done.
I am wondering whether the Persians in 17th century Siam section would be better closer up the top of the article as it gives some context (?)
This is actually the last block of text I wrote. I see it as a sort of appendix. I also see it as something that could be developed in another Wiki article.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
I made some changes with (hopefully) sufficient explanation in the edit summaries - let me know if they are okay.
Yep -- your edits are fine. I had that sentence "The tomb of Sultan Sulaiman enjoys an atmospheric setting in a Muslim graveyard". I thought it sounded quite good, but was aware that it wasn't encyclopedic.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
It can be a fine line between sterile prose to concise and engaging prose to adding some words to make it more engaging to too wordy...and sometimes folks views on this differ. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support on comprehensiveness and prose, though concede my knowledge in the area is lacking, so this would be trumped if other readers found issues. Overall, a nice read -a concise, engaging article on a (to me) unknown piece of history. I don't really know enough to be too confident about its comprehensiveness but it appears to cover the topic well, and I can't see any other glaring fixable prose issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Excellent article. Support on prose, though i have no knowledge of this area of history. One suggestion. In the section 'destruction', the article says "He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer employed by the Siamese army" followed by a quote. I support the use of quotes of primary historical documents, but not reliance on them to be the only statement of the facts - the quote should be retained, but the expanation of how the French cannoneer brought about Singora's demise should be summarised in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. In a version of the article from January 31 ([[19]]), I summarized the 'destruction' section with "Diplomat Simon de la Loubere wrote that the war had lasted twenty years and ended when the sultan was captured by a French cannoneer working for the Siamese army"
I've just re-jigged the current version. It now reads He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer who crept into the city one night and single-handedly captured the sultan. What do you think? Singora (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
yep, that sorts it, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified WP:MLB, WP:DODGERS, WP:SOCAL, WP:Los Angeles--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified prior FAC discussants: Indrian, Jimfbleak, Sportsguy17 (also GA reviewer), Crisco 1492, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (also PR discussant) and Beerest 2--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified PR discussant Figureskatingfan--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified DYK reviewer Bloom6132--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important streaks/records in baseball/sports history. I have addressed the concerns of the prior FAC (both during the prior FAC and after it) and taken the article through a PR.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note that this article has had a page move, which has fooled the tool that presents prior discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - one of my major concerns from the previous FAC was the "play-by-play tables". I understand what they are because I am familiar with baseball, but your typical reader may not understand what they are (e.g. there's no legend to what the abbreviations mean). Furthermore, there is no context given to explain why these tables are notable - are these particular innings significant because they were close calls or because of the people Hershiser had to face? What was the criteria used to select these innings versus others? To be honest, I think they all need to be removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • As with anything on WP, they were included because they were what the secondary sources were talking about. During the streak, the secondary sources have discussed certain innings as being interesting for one reason or another. I am not sure if there is any one reason why they have all been discussed in the media, but these are the innnings that have been discussed. I summarized them in table format because that is what helps me understand what happened. I was thinking that by providing tables baseball fans could have an easy glance at the interesting innings, while the prose presents similar content for the non-baseball fan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Even so, simply detailing the innings in question in tables without any explanation is rather jarring. I think prose would be perfectly suitable way to highlight them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It seems clearer to me in table form. I will take a look at making the legend idea that you mentioned for these tables before removing them. Are you fine with the other tables (box scores and the opening table)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The other tables are great. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late comment, but the legend table seems to make for way too many tables (you've got a game-by-game table, a legend, an individual game box score, and an inning play-by-play). There is still no explanation in the article as to what the inning summary tables are, nor is there any context for their inclusion. I don't think the basic Wikipedia reader, even with a legend, will be able to understand what the tables are conveying. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • First sentence of last lead para - consider splitting into two.
  • Early in the entry, acronyms like NL and MLB are used, but the full terms are subsequently spelled out several times.
  • Innings are sometimes described in numerals (5th) and other times with words (fifth).
  • I notice that a slash is used to describe hits per at bats (0/9). I think a dash is the usual convention (0-for-9 or 0-9) - or even better, spelling out the situation for the non-fan (no hits in nine at bats).
  • September 23, 1988: A relay throw generally comes in from the outfield.
  • Same play: The LA Times called it controversial, but then said that the replay showed Butler swinging his arm at the fielder. It sounds like the right call was made on the double play, but the phrase "favorable umpire ruling" (in The streak section) makes it sound like he got a big and possibly undeserved break.
  • Really, the detail on that incident might confuse the situation for a non-fan.
    • The detail is confusing expert sportswriters who have interpreted the situation in various ways. It is a confusing play. I don't think we can expect a simple explanation of a confusing play to experts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is detailed coverage of the Oct 4 postseason game necessary since it didn't impact the streak?
    • Since he pitched 8 scoreless innings in that contest sequentially with the streak, those 8 innings have a lot of significance. Many would credit him with a 67 inning streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comparison to other streaks: As the other sections extensively refer to Drysdale's streak, this separate section seems redundant.
    • Are you saying this section is redundant with the Drysdale content in the Background or some other section. Although there are other sections that mention the Drsysdale streak, I am not sure any are very redundant with this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The fact that they played for the same team is also mentioned in the lead and Background. The umpire ruling issue is also mentioned in the lead, The streak and September 23, 1988. The Howell streak is mentioned in October 4, 1988. The fractional innings issue is touched on within September 23, 1988. Just not enough unique content to warrant its own section. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 23:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Things mentioned in both the WP:LEAD and the main body do not represent redundancy, they represent important facts. Keep in mind that the LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. I'll take a look at rearranging though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Aftermath: Bowling Greeen University - Even at that time, I think it was known as Bowling Green State University.

Good job on an entry that covers an important piece of baseball history. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A small note regarding hits per at bats: 0/9 is the usual convention I am aware of; I have never seen 0-9 used. I agree though that spelling it out would be the best approach. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mom & Me & Mom[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Maya Angelou's final (or more likely, most recent) autobiography, which she published at the age of 85. It's a little on the short side for an FA, but still eligible, and I believe, comprehensive enough. It's my personal goal to bring all of Angelou's major works, where possible, to FA-status. Thanks for the consideration, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. 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, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why do you suggest the cover is non-free rather than PD-text/PD-ineligible? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Nikki, but I have no idea what you're talking about. (Images are not my strong suit here.) I dealt with the cover image the same as I always have. Please tell me what you want me to do. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I love how you always learn stuff here. This was the first time I had to deal with this, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Unless I've missed it, there's no mention of who published the book? It seems to be the same with Song Flung... and other Angelou biographies.—indopug (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Combination of me not understanding how to use the infobox template and depreciated parameters; not only did I fix it on this article, I went back and made the correction on her other autobiographies. I probably should make sure they're correct at Angelou's other books, too. Will do so, but later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Support nomination: The prose and presentation is very fine, and the article is rich in comprehensiveness. I don't yet see an issue that should prevent it from achieving WP:Featured article status. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Shoebox2[edit]

Tentative support. Characteristically well-written, beautifully formatted and thorough. For the most part a wonderful and eminently readable job of demonstrating enthusiasm and affection for the subject without tipping over into bias. I do have a few minor concerns prior to confirming:

  • "They briefly visited their mother in St. Louis, but at the age of eight, Angelou was raped, the rapist was killed; she felt so guilty, she chose to stop talking to everyone but Bailey." --This key moment in the synopsis feels vague and rambly. In particular, I'm not sure what the first clause has to do with the rest of the sentence, and "the rapist was killed" could stand a bit of elaboration (a revenge killing? By whom?)
  • "Baxter's reaction was to run a bath; as Angelou said, "In our family, for some unknown reason, we consider it an honor to run a bath, to put in bubbles and good scents for another person" --This is a lovely little anecdote, but maybe a bit too much specific detail in a synopsis?
  • "There is a heart-breaking scene between Angelou and her brother" --"Heart-breaking", though probably true, is much too emotive for encyclopedic comfort. How about "difficult"?
  • "Angelou's editor Robert Loomis was able to dare her into writing Caged Bird by challenging her to write an autobiography that could be considered "high art"," --"Dare her into writing" feels a bit overly informal, if not actually weasel-y. Suggest replacing with "convince her to write".
  • "Style and genre" --This may just be my unfamiliarity with the standard format for articles on individual volumes of a book series, but there appears to be much more of a general overview of Angelou's work in this section than is needed to place this one volume into context. In particular, the paragraph outlining her writing process, in great detail, doesn't seem to have anything to do with this particular book at all?
  • "Angelou's autobiographies conform to the genre's standard structure: they are written by a single author, they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." --Given that the following paragraph specifically covers the debate over whether her books can strictly be considered autobiographies, perhaps this opening reference should be something like "Angelou's prose works (or "Angelou's memoirs") conform to the standard autobiographical structure"? Also "elements of character, technique and theme" feels extremely vague (couldn't this be said of most books?)
  • "in the British publication The Independent", "the London publication The Observer" --Not sure why "publication" is used here in place of the more informative "newspaper"? (And both are British--ie. national--papers, by the way.) Similarly, "British Broadcasting Corporation" can I think be safely abbreviated to the much more standard "BBC".

Shoebox2 talk 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Operation Flavius[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In 1988, at the height of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland, an IRA team attempted to detonate a car bomb in Gibraltar. They were pursued by British special special forces, who shot dead three IRA members who later turned out be unarmed and not in possession of a bomb. The resulting chain reaction left another half a dozen people dead in Belfast, while a dispute over the legality of the SAS' actions raged for another seven years until a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which left neither side entirely satisfied. This article documents that chain of events, with all its twists and turns.

It's certainly been interesting, given that the subject matter is still controversial today, but I think the article is a neutral summary of the events and the controversy. I'm indebted to Wikimedia UK, who paid for most of the source material; to the MilHist A-class reviewers; and to Scolaire and Rms125a@hotmail.com for their help and for challenging me on the talk page to make this the best article it could be. Any and all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

Comments from Cirt moved to talk page, by Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
They are? Where? Can't see them at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just click "Talk" at the top of this page. It's hard to miss them. Apologies if that was meant as humour. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Only if you are in the sub-page. Not a very helpful place to put them frankly. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Now I see. Well, for those who come after, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1. --Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm now more than satisfied with the responses by HJ Mitchell. I'm most thankful for the polite and professional demeanor in which HJ Mitchell has conducted himself during his replies to me, it's most appreciated!!! Good luck with the rest of the FAC, — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, Cirt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Noting the concern raised by Cirt above about ordering of general and specific references: this was raised at a previous FAC (don't remember offhand which), where I was satisfied that the current ordering is acceptable even if not the most common approach
  • "trial by television" quote should be cited immediately in the lead
  • Citation-needed tag needs to be addressed. I see that this issue too was raised above - make a decision about whether it needs to be cited and either add a cite or remove the tag
  • FN116: no all-caps
  • FN1: source appears to include publication date
  • FN2: date doesn't match that given by source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria, we agree it's not the most common approach. But I respect your judgment that it's acceptable, if not ideal. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, your attention to detail is greatly appreciated. I think I've addressed all your concerns, and Cirt's fact tag (whether or not it needs a reference, one more reference won't hurt anything). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Support from John[edit]

  • Support I took a wee hack at the prose; active voice over passive, while, however, NPOV language (which is difficult in an area like this), SAS's; minor stuff mostly. I'd say this is ready for promotion. --John (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    A few good catches there, thanks John. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at the MILHIST ACR and am pleased with its quality. Great work on a controversial topic by HJ. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Warlugulong[edit]

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a small article about a very big painting. An epic description of sacred stories from Central Australia, it set a record for the price paid for Indigenous Australian art when it was bought by the National Gallery of Australia in 2007. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - For a painting that's 6m2, File:Warlugulong 1977.JPG is tiny. I can't make out any details and thought it looked like stone and moss. Wikipedia's non-free policies may limit the size of that file, but consider adding a second image showing zoomed in details, highlighting one of the stories. - hahnchen 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Photography is prohibited in the gallery, and I have not located any close-up images. The image here is at the same resolution as the National Gallery uses in its online collection image. I sympathise with the problem, but I have no solution at this point. :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Click on the zoom button... - hahnchen 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Odd, i thought i did that but only got a larger version at same resolution. You are correct. I'll work on this... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, had a go at that. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you actually just photograph your screen? Use the print screen function, copy it into paint, crop it and save it as PNG. You should get higher quality and lower resolution. - hahnchen 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If I could, I would do that, but my 'print screen' function doesn't work (never has - I don't know why), and 'print to file' appears prevented by the host site (doubtless some sort of nifty copyright control). hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Hahnchen for sorting out the close-up image. All good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Miegunyah Press or The Miegunyah Press?
  • Be consistent in where you include state: once Melbourne has it, the next time it doesn't
  • FN15: page? Also, that parenthetical probably shouldn't be italicized
  • It was an online article and I had omitted the link. I've fixed that. I'm pretty sure the parenthetical part should remain italicised as it is the title of that edition / part of the newspaper in question, but will take further guidance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Found.

Thanks Nikki! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment My preferences show Hidden categories, revealed as including: "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters", and "CS1 errors: dates". Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Johnbod, i don't what those things mean or how to address them - for example, i don't know how to determine if a template parameter is deprecated or what the preferred alternative is - and i don't know how to view hidden categories. Any pointers? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You can turn on the ability to view hidden categories via Preferences (see here for directions). Being able to access those categories may help you address those parameter and CSI date issues (though not having a real understanding of their purpose or effect on an article's quality, I'm not sure if they're really things that you would need to fix. I'll leave that up to the other reviewers). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ruby. Having read this, i was able to identify the deprecated cite template parameters and fixed them. My hunch is that the "CS1 errors: dates" message may be a false positive - I can find no parameter errors or deprecated template terms in the article that relate to dates. But I also can't get rid of the bloody message. Hopefully someone else will come up with something...hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't loose sleep over this, but maybe leave a request for assistance on the HIDDENCAT talk. Ceoil (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
...Indigenous men at Papunya, in Australia's western desert, began... - these subordinate bits I often put in between mdashes, just to break up a whole slew of commas.
Sometimes agree, but don't think this phrase is an appropriate candidate for such dashes, as it isn't the sort of 'additional side observation' that best suits that punctuation.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
can we link "synthetic polymer paint" to something?
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Lungkata is italicised and unitalicised....also is it worth a redlink as a significant spirit/being?
Unitalicised the one instance where it had been, for some reason. Line ball on the latter. I'm probably inclined not to. Ive seen the term in three contexts: this painting by Clifford Possum, the middle name of another notable artist, and a walk in Uluru NP. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the article is pretty small and this might indeed be all we can get that is citeable - if there were any interviews where the artist had discussed the owrk or any more analysis of the themes in the painting (colours chosen/whatever), that would be good to add. However it is engagingly written and I can't see much wrong prosewise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added this and this and have ordered a book from the library that i don't think i have yet checked, to see if i come up with anything further. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking better. A couple of other things..discussions of the themes seems a touch sparse but maybe nothing more exists to cite, so I suspect what we have fulfils comprehensiveness.....?
OK, i have checked two books that arrived, and one did allow me to add some significant material: the diff is here. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I presume the painting is on display in canberra....you haven't actually said. Has it been loaned anywhere?
Somewhat to my surprise, I couldn't find anything that says it is on permanent display, though i believe it to be. Certainly it is currently on display on level one, as the NGA website shows, but it doesn't specify that this is permanent, so there didn't seem much point in saying more than what the article currently specifies: that the work is in the NGA collection. I'm not aware of it having been loaned and the NGA text does not indicate that it has.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, unless I am missing something, the article as it stands now does not say the NGA has it on display, only that it has bought it....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, tweaked. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on target on prose, pending reolution of comprehensiveness queries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Tadeusz Kościuszko a Polish revolutionary hero who also fought in the American Revolution. It was nominated for FA before and had wide support, but because a couple of minor issues came up, and the discussions dragged on, the nomination didn't make it. All issues have long since been resolved, imo. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO[edit]

  • Cleaned up more than a dozen overlinks. I tend to ignore the first instance of a link after the introduction, but eliminate them after that. There may be a few examples of unnecessary links but nothing major popped out.
Thanks Mongo. If the topic is an important one I'll usually link it more than once if it occurs in a separate section, but usually not in two consecutive sections. I also try to stay away from links in the lede unless the topic is a key topic to the subject of the article. In any case, discretion is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Going through editing history since the close of the last FAC effort on October 12, 2013...and will see if issues have been adjusted. Edit history since seems to indicate that one issue, that of stability, is no longer an issue. Will have further to add in next few days.--MONGO 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Currently engaged in last review and some minor copyediting which I hope to finish late today..my edits aren't in stone and may need further adjustments.--MONGO 15:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support...I've made a number of recent edits most of which are just tweaks and minor MOS related adjustments. An important article that covers all the bases and worthy of being rated as Featured Article. Congrats to all those instrumental in bringing this complex article to this level.--MONGO 20:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Herb_Roch_III.svg: what is the source and copyright status of the original work?
  • Not required, but would be helpful to translate non-English descriptions like that of File:Музей-усадьба_Т._Косцюшки....JPG
  • File:Tadeusz_Kośiuszko_during_battle_of_Racławice.PNG is not the same as shown in the source - were edits made to the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It means I set the white/grey/black levels more appropriately. The initial upload had a blue tinge. (Hohum @) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just noticed the original file at the source link was different to the first upload. I've uploaded that one, and then provided a colour balanced version which doesn't have the blurred sky (and top of his hat), and less blowout of highlights. It does have more muted colours than we had previously though. (Hohum @) 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
For those who didn't know: The new version is a marked improvement. I've uploaded hundreds of images and often times I've edited a given image beforehand. i.e. enlarge, enhance color, adjust tone, enhance clarity if needed, etc. If the original file is eligible for use here at WP, making graphic improvements isn't anything that will change that. Nice work Hohum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes and tweaks[edit]

I've been making some minor adjustments in a few of the citations, moving source info from text/markup to the Bibliography, adding some ref links, etc. The citations themselves remain the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support This is clearly a well-written article and I think it should be promoted to FA status. 23 editor (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Slammiversary (2008)[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an event held in June 2008. It is the sixth anniversary show of TNA's. A man died after the event while cleaning up the arena. I have two PPV articles from 2008 already achieve FA status and I'm trying to get all 12 there. This is my 4th attempt at getting a 2008 event to FA. I tried with Sacrifice 08 a couple of times but it never worked out. I'll be trying with it again after this one, but I figured I might as well try with a new one first. Any comments are appreciated.--WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll review another FA nomination in turn for a review on this article.--WillC 09:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Small fixes[edit]

  • Does "After the event..." in the lead deserve its own paragraph? Not sure why it is lumped together with the 'reception' stuff in the lead.
    • Not really about reception, covers all events after the event. The buyrate, things it is remembered for, the reception, and the death of someone. Someone dieing as a result of the event is pretty important but that line pretty much covers are necessary information.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also in the lead (and in the article) "Six Woman Tag Team match" and in the article "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer", "Tag Team match" and "Ten Woman TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal" -> remove capital letters?
    • They are match types and special titles. They are important and should be capital since that is how they are promoted. I would understand on tag team match, but it is like that to be uniform with all match titles. Plus it looks neater than 10 woman knockout makeover battle royal, special guest ringside enforcer, etc. These were things the events were promoted on. Nash being Special Guest Ringside Enforcer for this match was used later on in the storylines so it was more than just a random unimportant action.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The predominate storyline -> predominant?
    • Either works, they have nearly the same definition.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reading the reception section, I thought you could afford to expand it a bit more. Mainly more of Keller's comments on the main event.
    • He didn't have alot to say. I'll look into it again.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I added another line regarding Keller, all I could do with him. Switched out the Sun stuff with Caldwell of the Torch.--WillC 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Accident section - "TNA released a statement the next day on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter." Is mentioning "on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter" relevant? Also, I think that you would be better off using the quote like in NXT Arrival#Aftermath. "TNA released a statement the next day" -> quote -> "The June 12 episode"... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • From the source. Said that was the purpose of the release, was on Carter's behalf and not the promotion. That table distracts too much from the purpose of the section. Makes itself the main point.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately for you and the article, due to the Sun's greedy "pay for reading or read only the first line" policy, that content is no longer verifiable. Click the source if you don't know what I'm talking about. What are you going to do about that? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Ahh crap, I guess I'll remove it. I left that over from the previous revision when it passed GA. I figured it was still good. I liked the sun additions, made the articles look more professional. I'll wait and see if I can find the release through someone else. I probably can.--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Switched it with an article from the Fight Network.--WillC 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You explain dark match... the second time it appears in the body, not the first. Should dark match even appear in the lead? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Lead shouldn't have explanations, it distracts from the purpose of a summary. Dark match was on the card of the event. Promoted? Not really but still took place at the show.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The first time "dark match" appears in the body, not the lead, is in the Storylines section. You explained "dark match" later in the Event section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed that. Removed dark match and switched it with pre-show in the disclaimer. Too much of an explanation for that area. Kept the explanation in the event with the first mention of the term, besides the lead of course.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Aftermath section - first paragraph first line - remove "still"? Also, first paragraph second line isn't sourced - the source is for the first line.
    • Done, I had the still in there because I mention the concerns in the Storylines section. I was trying to stay consistent.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Event section - Miscellaneous subsection - "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" sounds totally weird to me. How about "Besides those who wrestled a match"?
    • You may be on to something here. However, I'm not sure that explains the whole purpose. I'm trying to include everyone. Even people involved in the matches through interference. There may be a middle ground to be found here though.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I know you're trying to include everyone, I'm not advocating taking out any names. I just think that the phrasing "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" is wrong. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Done with a tweak.--WillC 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Event section and Results section - Roode was the next to qualify after bashing a ladder Cage held with a chair and then pinning Cage. and Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair. - I think that after the "with a chair"s, you should insert "into Cage". It appears that Roode just bashed a ladder. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You are correct. He actually hit a ladder. He had no direct contact with Cage. In fact, I'm not even sure the ladder ran into Cage.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I hit up YouTube for highlights, Christian was pressing his face against the ladder like it was Trish Stratus. Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair into Cage. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Done with a tweak.--WillC 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay lastly, the pictures need improvement. I don't like LAX or Styles' pictures. You could use a better Styles picture, maybe this one. Since there aren't any better LAX pictures, I recommend adding a Petey picture. I think one of this or this will work. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd change the AJ picture if a good one is presented that appears better than the one currently, but using a Williams picture is a no since his match didn't get any build leading up to and was mostly ignored. LAX overrules there since they were the undercard match and thus should be presented over Williams.--WillC 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I also must consider licenses and the Styles picture above does exactly have the greatest copyright info and appears to not even be on commons, thus causing more problems.--WillC 17:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Huh? The Styles pocture is on Commons. It was taken by Tabercil, an admin here (and on Commons) who has a history of taking pro wrestling photos.
      • What do you mean LAX "were the undercard match"? Petey was also in an undercard match, and his match was even longer than LAX's. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I was looking at the wrong Styles picture. My bad. Williams match was added to the card right before the event. Really had no build while the LAX match had nearly 2 months of build and thus was more important. I feel it should be presented since it was a main contest, over the X Title match. I changed the Styles picture though.--WillC 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Okay, all should be fine now; just saying I went to crop the LAX and Styles pictures. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just link right to the observer article? It also contains some things missed in the article. --124.178.179.118 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What?--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 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, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 video game, and the latest entry into the culturally significant Grand Theft Auto series. The game's five year development cycle was one of the biggest undertakings in the industry, and the game was subject to enormous hype. It shattered records for the entire entertainment industry and is on track to be the best-selling video game ever. I've worked on this article a great deal over the past six months. Having just culled down Reception and split Development off, I feel the article is well-written and, importantly, at a readable length which is why I feel it qualifies as FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment I just looked at the Controversy section, which can be significantly trimmed. The text often loses focus from the subject at hand. For eg, "Helen Lewis of The Guardian felt Petit's observations were valid, but were stigmatised by gamers who have become 'hyper-sensitive to criticism' " has little to do with GTA V but rather is about an article that criticised it. Another thing is: are those Forbes articles reliable? They're by Forbes "contributors"; basically anybody can become one, and you get paid by the number of hits you generate. I doubt there's any fact-checking etc.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Forbes are used three times in the article. The first reference (#74) is used to support the claim that the game outsold analyst expectations. Dave Thier's bio states that he is a freelance writer - that may be a problem, although his bio also states that his work has been reused by a number of RS. Going off the bio of Eric Kain (#122), he seems much more usable. I'd put Paul Tassi (#125) on par with Thier, but he can easily go as his article is only used in response to another. So I'll let you decide based on their individual merits which, if any, we can keep. Now, I think the whole controversy-within-a-controversy over Petit's review is a mentionable thing, because her comments, and the response to them, really instigated the whole "misogyny?" discussion. CR4ZE (t) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
On a side note, the merge tag at the top of the page shouldn't be a problem for the article. Since the debate's been open for nearly two months, I yesterday asked at the WikiProject and Admin Noticeboard for closure. Because of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)'s content (not much to stand on its own two feet in my opinion), whatever the result of the discussion won't impact this article's content, although I invite anybody to go ahead and close the discussion off as we go forward with the FAC. CR4ZE (t) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
By chance, the use of Forbes is currently being discussed at WT:VG/RS. The current consensus is that the staff are reliable, but the contributors might not be. You already have reliable sources for the $800M and gamer-misogyny lines, you don't need Forbes. And for a defense of the torture sequence, you should try Tom Bissell[20] or Tom Chick[21]. - hahnchen 04:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Upon further consideration I think the Thier's piece, which we're using to support the claim about the analyst, is a situational okay. I think the key difference is that Kain's and Tassi's work here are opinion pieces about the game's controversy, and I'll happily take them out and replace them upon Hahnchen's recommendation. Now Thier on the other hand is examining the sales GTA V posted on its first day against Arvind Bhatia's estimations. That's objective reporting; comparing one fact against another. So it really becomes a question about Bhatia... Well, I think given IGN is quoting him, it shouldn't be looked at any differently if Forbes is. CR4ZE (t) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Forbes' contributor pieces do not have editorial oversight, that in this case, they happen to be correct does not mean they're the best sources available. You already have the Reuters source, Variety can back up Bhatia's estimate. - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Even though that's a subjective comment, if there's a better source available I'll happily replace it. CR4ZE (t) 07:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I have now added Bissell's and Chick's pieces into the Controversy section. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't be thoroughly reviewing this article because I haven't properly played the game (release it on PC damnit!) Just a quick thing I noticed, there's no mention of microtransactions at all, despite it generating half of TTWO's digital revenue in the last quarter. That 70% of players have played online might be worth noting in the reception too.[22][23] - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
There was a paragraph on GTA Online, but it got moved to the development article when I decided to split it. I can copy the paragraph over to here again? And add that note in Sales perhaps? Does the article need this? CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It does not need the Allianz quote, it's a piece of trivia fluff for Allianz marketing. If it got picked up by secondary sources, it might be worthy of inclusion, but I doubt it.
GTA Online redirects to Grand Theft Auto V. The development sub-article is not where readers would go to find information on GTA Online. While details of the online component's development would sit in the development subarticle, its gameplay, revenue model and reception should not. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I have inserted a new section into Reception titled "Multiplayer launch", and have written up a paragraph summarising the reviews I was able to collate. Now I need to make a few points here. Firstly, four of the five reviews in the table are considered 100% RS. Destructoid is situational depending on the writer, and in this case Chris Carter is an editor who is also "Reviews Director". The Polish review, GRYOnline.pl, is considered RS. I felt it was necessary to have this one because of the lack of RS to add to the table; the alternative is to add GamesMaster's review, but it's a print medium I don't have, so I can't supply author name, publisher etc. Finally, I have included publication dates in the table. This is because, given the nature of GTA Online's launch, the date of the publication is just as, if not, more important than the review score. Reviews were clearly impacted by the launch issues, so I think it's important the table includes dates next to scores. CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll add too that I'm not going to add the Metro article about GTA Online's revenue to the article, because it is sourced from NeoGAF. CR4ZE (t) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Can understand why the Metro piece isn't good enough. The MCV piece might still be worth a mention, I also spotted that Bhatia's estimates for GTA Online were picked up too.[24] You could link those two pieces together in a sentence summing up GTA Online's sales. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Added some post-release information for GTA Online. Not sure if Bhatia's estimations need to be mentioned though. CR4ZE (t) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is no mention of the music or the soundtrack in the reception. Its the first GTA to have an original score, this is important. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
When I collated reviews while writing Reception, I really only found Destructoid's review gave mention to the sound design. I have inserted it into one of the paragraphs, because I don't know if I have enough for a full one. CR4ZE (t) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty more that could be said about the soundtrack. Both IGN and Gamespot touch on it, but what you really need is the Edge review in print (Issue 259). There's a page long post script about the series' music. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been able to get a small paragraph out of those handful of quotes. I have tried unsuccessfully to find scans of the Edge review online. I'd happily buy it, but it wouldn't arrive in my mailbox for a few weeks. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:X201 who may have a copy of that issue. I do have a copy of that issue, but it's in storage and I won't be able to get at it until April. You can also just buy the digital version. - hahnchen 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I've got it, will sort out a way to get the info to Craze. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
All good. I bought it. Will write something up tomorrow. CR4ZE (t) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Query. This game has only bee out for about six months. It will, at some point, presumably have an impact and a legacy, which is what an encyclopaedia should be evaluating. Is it not a bit too early to have a 'finished' encyclopaedia article? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • We have featured articles on living people who's legacy is sure to grow. While an unreleased game has too much left in the air, a game that has been released and appraised is enough for a featured article in my opinion. - hahnchen 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No Wikipedia article is ever complete. Dishonored is likely to pass even without a Legacy section, because the article is complete with the information available now with no obvious omissions. Inevitably, yes, we'll probably have to add a Legacy section, but that doesn't stop the article from being finished with the content that's presented at present. CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*not now too early, it has yet to be released on PC, and the game has only been out for 6 months. i forsee some pretty significant changes to the article. a Featured Article should be fairly stable in terms of content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good reason. You're making presumptions based on future events that haven't happened yet. Has the PC version been announced yet? No. When it does, how exactly do you consider that the article will go under "significant change"? Are we going to have to rewrite the entire article because of a port to another platform? I bet not. The article has remained structurally the same since the successful GAN, except that the readability has been improved with a split Development and culled Reception. I'd say it was stable at the GAN and has remained so since then. CR4ZE (t) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, stating that the article could go under "significant change," (and stating that this should prevent the promotion of the article to FAC) simply based on your own personal theories on the direction of the game development, is potentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
perhaps. I don't mean that it's a bad article. i guess you are right, rockstar, for whatever reason, has been completely silent about the PC release. i did make an assumption, based on the fact that GTA4 was released on pc, and that the PC market is quite large. however, in retrospect, i really don't see why it should stop a FAC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Over a week now and no new comments. Surely there are more editors interested in conducting a review. CR4ZE (tc) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. High quality prose and grammar. Mr*|(60nna) 07:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Is Quarter to Three a reliable source?
  • Likewise with NintendoEverything – I've heard of it, but it was seen as iffy in Pokémon Channel's FAC. Here, it draws from a Famitsu source; it'd be nice if you found and cited that.
  • Reception (the non-subsection part) may still be bordering on too long. The points all seem well-supported enough for inclusion – perhaps too much, as I think you could cut out some of the details and redundant quotes.
  • "Depiction of torture" consists of one very long paragraph. Split it somewhere.
  • The article looks fine otherwise. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Quarter to Three is Tom Chick's website, and given his reputation in the field he should be okay to use. Hahnchen can probably give a better justification if need be.
  • I did some searching for a replacement for Nintendo Everything, and the only RS I found was VG247, but even then the statement in the prose is different to what is available via VG247 as they appear to be citing a different part of the Famitsu article. Not to mention the fact that the article is sourced from NeoGAF and NintendoLife, which to me comes across as sloppy. I've removed the information. Famitsu appears to be hard to get online, and even if I got it... I don't speak Japanese, so there's no point. It's information more relevant to the Japanese Wikipedia anyway.
  • It's possible to cite Japanese articles; I do it all the time. Some browsers have auto-translators; if not I'm sure you could Google Translate it to get a basic idea. Nevertheless, if you don't want to add it you don't have to, since GTAV is a Western game and this is the English Wikipedia.
  • I disagree. It's been cut down a fair bit, but with a game covered as widely in the media as this, a good-size reception section is kind of necessary. The only way I could see it being cut down even further is if we removed the second paragraph, the one about GTA V being this generation's magnum opus. However, take into consideration Dishonored, which recently passed FAC with a reception section at 1,243 words, and look at that in context with GTA V's slightly shorter 1,111 words. I'm not trying to use WP:WAX, but my point is that for some games, the wide scope of the reviews sometimes necessitates a lengthy reception section and cutting it down too much might not give the reader all the appropriate information they could get. Excepting its development, a game's reception is the most important thing to cover in a WP article.
  • That's fair. I ought to be less knee-jerk about that.
  • Paragraph is now split in two. CR4ZE (tc) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Support; my issues have all been addressed. Nice work! Before the large amount of work on GTAV and related articles, I assumed the GTA task force had been pretty much abandoned. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • That the game was published by Rockstar isn't cited in the article, nor is the "fifteenth" part
  • "Off-mission, ": "missions" needs explanation before introducing "off-mission"
  • general tip to use shorter words and conserve syllables wherever possible to make sentences easier (allow → let/put, utilize → use)
  • "freely roam the state's countryside": is it the state's or the city's countryside? Seemed more like the latter to me
  • "Players control the three lead protagonists simultaneously": would be better to say that the story for all three happens concurrently and that the player swaps player-characters at will rather than introduce the idea that one controller does three things at once. This ¶ can be a bit more precise
  • {{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous—not sure it is in this case
  • producer/designer/etc. credits should be sourced and mentioned in the article
  • I don't think the list of Rockstar subsidiaries belongs in the infobox per the |developer= param description
  • I highly recommend list-defined refs for the future—makes editing much easier for copyeditors
  • First ¶ of Gameplay is out of order—the specific health and law mechanics should follow the basic overview of gameplay: action-adventure, how the characters are controlled, you shoot things, you interact with things, etc. HUD stuff might be best for its own ensuing paragraph. This is to say that "In combat, auto-aim..." jumped into "combat" when the reader doesn't know combat means gunfight here. Similarly, "its halfway point"—halfway of what? What is an "illegal act" or a "mission" (not necessarily a definition, but what does it mean in this game)? These are solid questions for people who know little about video games but want to read about the fastest selling entertainment of all time
  • Try to reduce the semicolons, which are awkward
  • Em dashes aren't spaced, en dashes can be (when used as an em dash)
  • I'll pause here for now since your Gameplay edits might alter the whole section
  • Note geographic parenthetical comma use in MOS:COMMA—it's tricky

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar  11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Rockstar, actually, have been cited. Each of the first two sentences in Development cover both Rockstar Games and Rockstar North with reliable sources giving direct mentions. As for the game being the fifteenth entry, I can't find a reliable source for this. All I get is this, which isn't a fantastic choice. It isn't really an objectionable statement, however I can just remove it instead.
  • I've made the gameplay paragraph in the lead a little more precise now.
  • What's interesting about the media field is that the game had to be shipped on two Xbox 360 discs but only one PS3 disc. Rockstar had to put out an announcement reassuring gamers that there wouldn't be any differences between the versions. Wouldn't that be a mentionable thing? It's covered in a little more depth in the "Overview" section of the Development sub-article. Have a read first before I remove the |media= field.
  • Producer/designer again falls into the category of facts that got moved into the Development page upon the split. I can recycle the citations into the Infobox?
  • That could be true for most games, which is what the Infobox is designed to cover, but how many games can you name that required a core development team plus seven studios split between the UK and the US, and the manpower of at least 1,000 people? I can cite the fact that the game required all that widespread effort, but I can't seem to cite each separate studio's contributions unless you're okay with the game credits as a source. But if you still think the list can go I'll take it out.
  • There are lots of list-defined refs once you get down to the Awards, but it's an editorial preference anyway. You should turn the wikEd gadget on if it bothers you.
  • Added "meter" after "health" and reworded "illegal acts" to "crimes". I'm trying to think of a better way to describe what a "mission" is because any synonymous terms are even more confusing. Can't say I agree completely on the organisation but I'm looking into it. The thing is, we need to give the reader insight into the basic action gameplay mechanics immediately, before we get into the character-switching and the open world design. By the time they get to "In combat, auto-aim..." readers are already aware that there is combat, because the second sentence explains that players use guns and stabby things to kill people. Same for the Wanted system, which needs to be explained ASAP because it's a major underlying mechanic of the game. Now, what I could do is keep all those basic mechanics in the first paragraph, then trim bits from the others into a new second paragraph thoroughly explaining the open world design. Getting into the way the single-player story/switching works first before all that would be very disorganised.
  • The most grammatical correct way to introduce a "for example" is to put a semi-colon there. Other semi-colons are gone.
  • User:Czar, ping. CR4ZE (tc) 08:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Rockstar cites, I meant the whole list of Rockstar NYC etc. from the infobox (I mentioned this above, re: subsidiaries). IBT ref works for me (though it may be citogenesis). I think the infobox media can go—if it's not worth mentioning in the article, is it worth mentioning in the infobox? "Roam" is used twice in the lede. Putting refs in the infobox when the item's not mentioned in the article is totally fine. If it's worth mentioning the transnational dev split, it should go in the prose (not the infobox and definitely not infobox-only). I'm not contending for a total reorg of the Gameplay, just threw out an idea. It does, however, need to read so someone such as my hypothetical person can pick up the article and understand it, which means situating the early, unavoidable jargon. Slogging through the rest now czar  04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: the transnational development is already mentioned in the appropriate section, Development. The source used doesn't give mention to each individual studio, so I have commented out the "Additional work" field in the infobox to run this by you. I can use the game credits to cite the development studios. Otherwise they can just remain hidden. I removed the second "roam" in the lede. I cited each individual producer/designer/etc, although I can't help but feel like the infobox looked nicer without citations there... Meh...it's either that, or mention them in the Development section, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to keep Development as short as possible. Though you weren't requiring that I do it, I have reorganised the Gameplay section and explained the open world design first with a little bit more detail. Do you prefer how it's arranged now? CR4ZE (tc) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh and the IBT ref came across to me as citogenesis as well, which is why I was bit uneasy about using it. CR4ZE (tc) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Czar has not yet responded to a ping to evaluate my response. CR4ZE (tc) 03:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It's hard for me to contribute during the week. I'll continue over the weekend, but don't let me hold up the review czar  03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth incorporating the individual dev team leads into the article, but you know the sources better than me. I usually work them in by way of quotes that credit them as "lead writer X". Gameplay reads much better, but I just gave it an edit as I read (as far as I could muster—the in-prose refs, British English, and lack of serial comma throw me off) and I cut out nearly a kB. The whole article can use this treatment, especially considering its current length. There are a few things I see contributing to its distracting verbosity: repeating the game's italicized name instead of saying "the game", lots of "the x of y" constructions where "y's x" could work, long descriptions that are best said as a single word or two, and ideas repeated in adjacent clauses that should be altogether recast as a single or two separate sentences. (The ce link above shows a few examples of each.) I know that in my own writing, I tend to shove too much stuff into a sentence and then have trouble seeing how to fit in everything I want. Instead of making Frankenstein sentences, I see what idea I'm trying to build around (the "cancer" of my sentence) and then recast the sentence around a different idea. Anyway, I feel this prose could use more concision for better flow. It's very long, so would you like to give it a try? I might slog through it, but I don't have much free time for intensive copyediting. czar  20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've trimmed down a couple of things, namely some additional critical reviews that were commented out in the table that wasted 2,000 bytes of data. I'll consider working the dev team key people into the prose, but I want to keep that Development section as short as possible. Regardless, it shouldn't hinder the article's featured candidacy. I think as you go down you'll find the prose a little clearer in the Development/Reception/Controversies sections. I've read through these sections many times over and I personally can't find too many ways to make cut-downs. It would need a fresh pair of eyes. I have made some small cuts in Development. The length of the article might seem long, but there's only so much we can do considering the scope of the game in news sources etc. Basically, I'd encourage you to give a run-through and make some final cuts yourself, because this candidate has been open for over a month now and it needs closing soon. CR4ZE (tc) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nicereddy[edit]

  • In "Gameplay", the multiplayer character/avatar is mentioned in second paragraph, where its mentioned that the southern point on the HUD compass represents the multiplayer character. While the three single-player characters are mentioned a few sentences prior, the multiplayer character isn't mentioned at all before this sentence, which is fairly confusing. If you could add a quick sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph, before the mention of the compass, I think that'd help clarify.
  • In the "Development" section: "The game required five years' work by a team of over 1,000 people...". I was wondering if this was grammatically correct, specifically the "five years'", as it looks off to me, but I could be wrong.
  • In "Plot", the FIB links to the actual Federal Bureau of Investigation page, which may be a bit confusing for readers.
  • In "Multiplayer launch", I think the following is a bit awkward: "Upon launch, users reported difficulties connecting to the game's servers and the Social Club service, or freezes during load screens for early missions." Specifically, the "or freezes during load screens for early missions." I'd also note that "the Social Club service" is fairly vague, and I don't believe it was mentioned previously in the article.
  • Also in the first paragraph of "Multiplayer launch", the phrase "A technical patch was released on *date*" is repeated twice only two sentences apart. You may want to reword one of these.

Other than that, the prose is fantastic, the article covers everything I'd expect, non-free imagery is used reasonably, and the sources seem reliable. I would consider archiving the references you're using (as I've done with Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike: Source's references, for example), since I've seen a pretty huge number of featured articles erode over time thanks to link rot. I think the longevity of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability is reliant heavily on archiving references, and this would save you a lot of annoyance in the future. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, a lack of archives would be a silly reason not to support the article's promotion. If you can fix the issues I've listed above, I'll gladly add my support. Fantastic job to everyone involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Nicereddy. I have attempted to clarify the compass system in "Gameplay". That sentence in "Development" wasn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, although it wasn't the best wording, so I have reworked it. I removed the wikilinks from the "Plot" and instead added a note explaining that the FIB and IAA were parodies, and sourced the claim. I have attempted to clean up those couple of awkward sentences in "Multiplayer launch". Please review my changes, and if you're happy, I'd love for you to throw down a Support vote. CR4ZE (tc) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - Apologies, as I had nearly forgotten! All of my issues seem to have been fixed, and as I said in my previous comment, the prose is fantastic, the references all cite legitimate sources, non-free image use is minimal, and the article covers all material I'd expect. Really great job! --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Several things to address:

Lead
  • Make note that it is the first game in the series with multiple playable characters
Reception
  • "According to review aggregating website Metacritic, the game received an average review score of 97/100 for both consoles, and according to GameRankings, the game received an average review score of 97.01% and 96.20% for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively." is lengthy. Try splitting it into something like "MetaCrtic calculated an average rating of 97/100 for both consoles. GameRankings calculated an average rating of 97.01% for the PlayStation 3 and 96.20% for the Xbox 360."
  • ref#77 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than simply The Telegraph
Multiplayer launch
  • GTA$500,000 → GTA $500,000
Awards
  • ref#142 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just Telegraph
Controversies
Depiction of torture
  • Remove ref#26 (Daily Mirror)- it's a tabloid
Accusations of sexism
  • like ref#77, ref#154 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just The Telegraph or Telegraph
Legal actions
  • Find a better source than ref#161 (New York Daily News) or remove altogether. If the detail is to be included, "US$20 million" should read "US $20 million"

After these are addressed, you have my support for this becoming FA. Good luck! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Everything has been taken care of. CR4ZE (tc) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Good work. That should do it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Delegate comment[edit]

  • Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Nicereddy approved the images in his comments. Would you like to see a full review? I can page some editors for an additional review of images if needed. CR4ZE (tc) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing for images (note that I'm coming from WT:VG where Cr4ze asked for help):
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V.png is cover art with proper rationale.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg is a game screenshot to demonstration sourced commentary on the gameplay, that's fine.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg is a game screenshot to showcase the game's engine and the similarities to the real city of LA, both backed by sourced discussion, so okay.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V torture sequence.jpg is a game screenshot from one of the game's controversial missions (a scene involving torture, but here showing a scene where the player-character is selecting which torture weapon to use). This is a bit of a tricky case. No question the scene is of critical discussion, but the screenshot itself is not indicative of why (not played, but as I've read, you actually see the torture happening). I would consider it might be better to use a shot here that shows the torture about to be enacted - eg we see the victim about to be struck or the like - as to make a screenshot use here more appropriate along NFC lines. Using this specific shot begs the question if it is really needed. But that's a point of debate to build on. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Masem: I'll happily replace the image, but what I liked about the one we had now was the fact that there was an on-screen prompt for the player to pick a weapon, which reinforces that it's imperative to mission progress to torture the victim. There are, however, replacements available. Take your pick. CR4ZE (tc) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Instead of those, I'd recommend a shot of the actual waterboarding. The IGN shots are relatively dark. I'd pick the one with the water canister, but I'd recommend using an image that actually illustrated the action that needs illustration. czar  15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree this might be a better shot. While a facet was that there were a number of ways to torture that the user could chose from, that really doesn't need a visual guide to show. But to show that the game actually showed the player doing this is what struck a nerve and the commentary on this scene and thus would be a clearly allowed screenshot moreso than the choie of tool. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Nominator(s): — Status (talk · contribs) & Tomíca(T2ME) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

...And we're back! Tomica (talk · contribs) and I have worked very hard on this article and we now have more time allotted to focus our energy in finally getting the article to FA status! We believe that it's very close to getting that gold star; all we need is your help getting it there! — Status (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • No disambiguation links or external links that need correcting, good work there!
  • Instead of using the term "US", I would recommend writing out "United States" when using referring to the country, and leaving it as "US" when using it as an adjective for something like "the US Billboard 200".
    I believe I've corrected all the instances. Let me know if there's any left that need changing. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, I suggest using the {{ubl}} template for the album chronology instead of the <br /> as it currently is.
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the introduction, can it be specified that Good Girl Gone Bad was released on May 31, specifically?
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also in the introduction, when you talk about Brandy's album, maybe you can mention that it was her fourth studio album and put its year of release in parentheses.
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Release history" section, you may be interested in placing the references in their own separate column instead of next to the countries as they currently are. This is just my personal preference, though, and certainly isn't a make-or-break deal; just something you might end up liking.
  • In the "References" section, most citations that use Amazon.com list the particular country abbreviation as well, like "Amazon.com (CA)". There are some that are plainly listed as "Amazon.com", and while it appears that these links go to the United States version, can you add in the "(US)" in the publisher field?
    Adjusted. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also in the "References" section, I believe that the Australian iTunes citation should be listed as the "iTunes Store'".
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I am happy with all of the revisions made, and am giving my support to the nomination. Nice job! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks so much! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism[edit]

Superficial comment from Prism

Hello Status! I see you have fought for this article to become an FA, and it is quite close to reaching such status. However, I have to be fair here, and compare Good Girl Gone Bad to other album FAs. It hardly references any of the lyrical content, and regardless of it clearly emphasizing the music and not the lyricism, it should talk about what the songs, in general, address. I'm not going to force you to write down every meaning of every song in the tracklisting, but just a general view would be welcome. Thank you! Prism 19:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Prism: We will have a look for sure to see if we find such information to add to the article, but we can't promise that such sources exist. I understand your concern and thank you for raising it! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Petergriffin9901[edit]

  • Quick comments - You guys need to sift through the references. I'm finding many inconsistencies. A few examples: I see MTV is sometimes in italics, Radio & Records is linked in awkward places, a few news articles are not properly formatted. These issues persist throughout. Also, regarding the prose. As a past music article editor, I know the difficulty in avoiding choppy, repetitive and possible listing-type prose when dealing in this field. However, in terms of comma usage and sentence structure, the article often reads a bit awkwardly.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Petergriffin9901: Thank you for your comments Nathan! Would you mind pasting a few sentences that you find read a bit awkwardly, so I have something to go on? As for the references, those will be a no-biggie to fix! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Вик Ретлхед[edit]

  • Good Girl Gone Bad produced five singles, including the international hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Umbrella", which Rolling Stone placed at number 412 on the magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list.—Is it "Don't Stop the Music" or "Umbrella" that was placed on Rolling Stone's list? You'll need to clarify this.
    • Just "Umbrella" was. Corrected. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS-ALBUM#Personnel ("If citing from Allmusic, do not include composer credits"), the composers in "Personnel" are redundant.
  • Good Girl Gone Bad is a dance-pop[19] and R&B album[20] influenced by 1980s music.[8]—This is a primary example of violating WP:SYNTH. It doesn't mean that if one critic says "it's a pop album" and another one calls it an R&B album, you can write "it's pop and R&B". Furthermore, the same can be said about the rest of the "Composition" section. Basically every song is tagged with genres by multiple sources.
  • West Indian shouldn't be linked. The article discusses some old civilization, which is not connected with the sound of Rihanna's previous albums.
    • Changed to Caribbean, as that's what the source states. I don't know where West Indian came from. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another issue is the prose in this section, which is not "brilliant". The section goes "song—genre—comparison with other artist" and the same on and on, while the text from "Critical response" is not cohesive. It lacks linking words and is filled with too many quotations.
  • "Accolades and legacy"—It would be better if the section was entitled just as "Accolades". I haven't noticed that the record influenced some other artist or had significant impact on its genre. Being nominated for Grammy and being certified platinum doesn't make it a "legacy" album.
  • Sorry, but I have to oppose the promotion of this article to FA. You've definitely put hard work on this one, but it needs additional fixes to match the criteria. The biggest strength of the page is the formatting style and tables, but the issues listed above can't be ignored.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Here's some things I would do before this becomes FA:

Development and title
  • The info on A Girl Like Me belongs on its own page, not here
  • The quote from what she told StarPheonix should just go in the first paragraph, and so should the first sentence of the second paragraph
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, don't use ref#7 multiple times in a row. Just include it at the end of the "Rihanna explained that she wanted to keep the audience dancing and be soulful at the same time" sentence.
Recording and production
  • Three photos in one corner is excessive. If including any, just use Ne-Yo and Tricky Stewart.
  • More WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#14 after the "Rapper Jay-Z added rap vocals" sentence in second paragraph, and ref#15 after the "over which Timberlake improvised his lyrics" bit.
Composition
  • More WP:OVERCITE, don't have ref#24 right after the "contains rhythmic devices used mainly in hip hop music" bit in second paragraph, ref#21 should just be used in the "It samples New Order's 1983 single 'Blue Monday'" sentence in second paragraph, and ref#23 should just be used after the "produced by Timbaland" bit in the third paragraph
Singles
  • If including a photo of Jay-Z, just use one of simply him and mention his collaboration with Rihanna on "Umbrella" and what critics said about it
Marketing and release
Live performances
  • More WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#80 at the end of the "'Don't Stop the Music' and 'Umbrella'" bit.
Re-issue and remix album
  • More WP:OVERCITE, ref#124 should just be used at the end of the second paragraph
  • Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé

Best of luck getting this to FA! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A metalloid is kind of a cross between a metal and a nonmetal. They have a mix of metallic, nonmetallic and in between properties.

One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I ask User:John if he could copyedit this article. I did, he did, and it looks very sharp now. User:Dirac66 then checked the article, was happy with the standard of copy-editing, and made a few technical observations that I've addressed. More details are at the metalloid talk page here and here. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Support from John[edit]

Support. As Sandh has generously pointed out I did a lot of work on this article. I know it intimately and have no reservations about supporting its promotion. --John (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I took out "In contrast, Jones (writing on the role of classification in science) observed that, 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.'<ref>[[#Jones2010|Jones 2010, p. 169]]</ref>" because I do not think it is essential to the article. Is Jones writing specifically about metalloids or is it just a general comment on classification? We already have enough about the difficulty of classifying elements as metalloids in any case. We used to have more. "In contrast" is one of the markers I look for in copyediting. So are "additionally", "actually" and "however". Unless the author has explicitly contrasted two things, we shouldn't use this term. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is very good. If I may, I'd like to keep Jones as a plain note (without the 'In contrast'). He isn't writing about metalloids. He's writing about whether or not Pluto is a planet and, in that context, the role of classification in science. His writing is particularly cogent, and the parallel of what used to be the lack of a definition of a planet, to the lack of an agreed definition of a metalloid, is striking and interesting. Of course, I won't say that in the note but I can hope that someone else may read Jones and enjoy the analogies. Just replace wherever he says "Pluto" and "planet" with "selenium" (e.g.) and "metalloid" :) Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Designate[edit]

Comment: I notice polonium and astatine are both marked as "Inconsistent" in the top infobox graphic, but only astatine is outlined in black in the bottom graphic. Shouldn't they both be outlined or non-outlined? —Designate (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the "inconsistency" at work ;-). The blue colors show the statistic outcome, the periodic table shows reasonings for the individual elements. Both statements are valid and sourced, but their contradiction requires explanation. As there is no space for that in the infobox (for a reason), the micro periodic table should go.
Note: I added the micro periodic table for overview, without giving it much thought back then [25]. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The bottom graphic could stay as the caption says it's 'a' periodic table, rather than 'the' periodic table. it's also linked to the periodic table article. I'm not fussed either way. Designate: if this would still seem to be too confusing I'll ask for the bottom graphic to be deleted. Thank you for your thought provoking comment. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sandbh, as Designate simply pointed out: it may be right & sourceable, but it is unexplained there. That is a sin. And I think that that table box is not the place to explain it, so removal is my choice. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the top graphic you have four categories: Commonly, Inconsistently, Less commonly, and Rarely. Seems the bottom graphic could include the top two designations, or the top three, or all four, but right now it's jarring because it doesn't seem to have been made with the same reasoning as the top graphic. —Designate (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, could you please remove the bottom graphic? Sandbh (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the one at the bottom of the infobox. —Designate (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see what you meant now. It is annoying that the code is so complex that it will require an expert to make this adjustment. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the small periodic table is colored based on this code. All the elements have a |category listed—maybe astatine and polonium can both be changed to category=unknown instead of metalloid/metal. The individual page for astatine calls it "Metalloid (disputed)" while the page for polonium calls it "Other metal (disputed)". It doesn't seem to me that they should be given the same color on the top chart at Metalloid if At is more commonly recognized as a metalloid than Po. —Designate (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the small PT at the base of the infobox. Deleted two lines I think) of code. I must've been tired when I asked DePiep to do it, as I could've done it myself if I'd looked harder. I'll restore the PT at the very end of the article on the presumption that this'll be OK to restore. Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. --John (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from R8R Gtrs[edit]

Support. During the first FAC, I wasn't confident the article deserved the FA status, but Sandbh refused to give up, and the article was getting better and better over time. I've given a lengthy comment during the second FAC. The issues I raised were resolved, and I didn't support only because I suddenly lost the opportunity to get online, check, and support. The article has remained FA-worthy ever since.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Harry Mitchell[edit]

This is not at all my are of expertise; I'm use to writing history articles, not science articles, but this is a really interesting subject so I thought I'd take a look.

  • Thank you very much Harry. I'm working my way through these, other than those John has astutely edited, and will respond further shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The feasibility of establishing a specific definition has been questioned by whom?
  • That would be Hawkes. I've hopefully made this clearer by using a semicolon to join this sentence to the one that follows it, since the latter sentence ends with the applicable citation. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this needs to attributed in the prose; we shouldn't expect the reader to read the citation to work out that the phrase is not in Wikipedia's 'voice'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • So done -- Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Classifying an element as a metalloid has been described... ditto?
  • No, that is Sharp, as per citation at the end of the sentence. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed -- Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.' You need a citation after a direct quote (I see you have one just before the quote; perhaps that could be moved to the end of the sentence?)
  • So done. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You need at least one citation in the 'physical and chemical' section
  • This section is the lede/high level summary for the following two sections, which include sourced text, and a main article link. As such, I didn't think it necessitated citation. I'm happy to revisit this however, if you feel that this will not do. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This could be done based on the extent to which an element exhibits properties relevant to such status. Is that from Hawkes? If it is, perhaps the citation could moved to the end of that sentence for clarity?
  • Yes; so done. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • selenium […] is used to improve the workability of stainless steels what does 'workability' mean in this context?
    • Changed to machinability and wikilinked. Good catch. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You could do with a citation at the end of paragraphs two and six of the 'biological agents' section
  • Will do Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Now done Sandbh (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Compounds of antimony are used as antiprotozoan drugs, and in some veterinary preparations. 'antiprotozoan' isn't a term I'm familiar with, and I'd be surprised if most lay people were familiar with it; an example of veterinary uses might be nice.
  • I've reworded and simplified this sentence, and added a citation. Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Tellurium is not considered particularly toxic. As little as two grams of sodium tellurate, if administered, can be lethal. Those seem to be two contradictory statements.
    • I think it emphasises the difference between the element and its compound. Edited to reflect this. Please fix it if I have misunderstood. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Watch 'with's, eg beryllium and lead are noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used...; this kind of use of 'with' is generally discouraged
    • I've taken quite a stern hack at the 'with's. Better? --John (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • compounds such as sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate are effective flame retardants for wood but were less frequently used... Were or are? 'Were' suggests they're now being used more frequently; is that the case?
    • Fixed tense. This is an error I introduced, so good catch again. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • requires a 'heroic quench rate' Who is this quoting? Why use a quote instead of a plain English phrase?
  • Kaminow & Li, as per end of sentence. I quite liked the concise way they expressed this hence kept it as a quote rather than recasting. I've now cited them after the quote, too. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The terms amphoteric element and semiconductor are problematic as some elements referred to as metalloids do not show marked amphoteric behaviour or semiconductivity in their most stable forms. There's much less detail there than on the other problematic terms; is that deliberate? You need a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • I've added examples of such elements, plus citations. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Use of this latter term has more recently been discouraged Try to use active voice where practical; who discouraged the use of the term? IUPAC or somebody else?
  • That was Atkins, as per the citation. (He also happens to be a past chair of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Education). Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reworded to make this clear -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 'remarkably inert to all acids, including hydrofluoric' according to whom? Perhaps spell out the what's remarkable about its non-reactivity with hydrofluoric acid (I can guess that it's remarkable because you mention boron does react with fluorine, but it would be nice not to make the reader guess)
  • That is according to Rochow, as per the citation after the quote. I'll see if I can add something about the highly corrosive nature of hydrofluoric acid. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reworded to show that it's Rochow speaking; note added to elaborate what's remarkable about non-reactivity to HF -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It can form alloys with many metals; most of these are brittle. Most of the alloys or most of the metals? I'm guessing the former, but it's ambiguous as it is.
    • Reworded for less ambiguity. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What's with the external link on electrode potential? External links shouldn't be linked inline per the MoS.
    • Fixed. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Classifying aluminium as a metalloid is disputed by whom? You cite some examples in the footnote, but it would be nice for the prose to elaborate. What's the scientific consensus? From the context, I'm guessing that it's to treat aluminium as a metal, but again, it would be nice to spell it out.
  • I've edited and restructured this section. It still starts with the same opening sentence but I've included a citation to a reference guide book on metallic materials. That's the closest I could get to scientific consensus that aluminium is a metal. The next paragraph is the one that says aluminium is sometimes classified as a metalloid. That's immediately followed by the disputing paragraph, with the authors doing the disputing given in the citation. Then there is the concluding paragraph with more moderate or nuanced views. I tend to minimize the use of active voice in an encyclopedia article such as this. Sandbh (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • and may be more appropriately classified as either Do you mean it is sometimes or by some people or that it could be?
  • Reworded -- Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

More generally:

  • I think the article uses a lot of technical terms, which makes it less accessible than it could be; I'd really love some brief parenthetical explanations of terms (I'll provide examples when I get chance)
  • OK, that's good to hear. Happy to oblige. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • watch uses of 'with'; use as a connective is discouraged (eg "p-block, with its main axis anchored by boron"; "noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used")
  • Done, as per John's edits. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • How I approached this is set out in Talk:Metalloid. I'm happy to revisit if needs be. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I love the comparisons with chemicals people know about (eg steel, tap water); how would you feel about adding some more? Not overdoing it, but enough that the reader has something to which they can compare the chemicals covered in the article.
  • Very happy to try for more as I like the value of comparisons with ordinary things. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • When I write history articles, I like to see the author introduced by their full name with an explanation of their credentials (eg "the British metallurgist Cecil Desch") rather than just by surname (eg "Phillips and Williams suggested that"...); I think it would be nice to see this here.
  • Not sure if that might be more particular to history writing? I don't often encounter it in scientific writing unless it is for the giants. I'm not sure I see it that much in arts writing either. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is obviously a labour of love and you've clearly put a lot of time into it. I don't see anything that would preclude it becoming an FA, but there's a little bit of work still to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Much appreciated. Always good to hear from non-experts. You see things and ask questions that aficionados would overlook or rarely think to ask. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we may be done here for now Harry, thank you. (I'll keep an eye out for any ripe technical terms, and possibilities for new comparisons with ordinary things). Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replied above on a couple of issues, and there are a couple of others I'll get to when I can (nothing too serious), but I'm happy with the changes so far. Great work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again; all looking good so far (a few small things for me to do still). Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

I'm no chemist so I'm concentrating on accessibility. Generally I agree with Harry's comments above, though not about "introducing" noted chemists in the literature. It's obvious they are chemists, so only anyone who isn't a chemist needs to be introduced, imo.

  • Thank you Johnbod. I appreciate your interest and observations. I'm working through these. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "packing efficiencies" has a whole para, but is linked but not explained, which it should be, very briefly.
  • Done -- Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion" is only explained in the notes, which is not ideal. Failing a short article, perhaps the explanation should go in the text.
  • Done, but this one was a bit trickier to explain concisely. There is still a somewhat technical term ('molar volume') although it has a link. Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The first para of "Number, composition and alternative treatments" pretty much entirely repeats, with added names of researchers, what has been said already. Better to merge it into the first time round? The first para of "Distinctive" is rather the same.
    • I've actioned the first suggestion and I tentatively agree it looks better. Sandbh, what do you think? --John (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Am in a rush; will respond as soon as Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The first one seems at least OK and a clever relocation. I'll have a closer look and post here if needs be. (Puffing to keep up!). Sandbh (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Have trimmed and restructured to remove duplication. Sandbh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the section on medical etc uses, but selenium is missing in the final bit. As I'm sure you know, it's inclusion in dietry supplement pills etc has been criticised recently.
  • I've added some content about selenium as an essential nutrient and its medicinal applications. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small atomic size, relatively high ionization energy, and its having fewer valence electrons (three) than atomic orbitals (four) available for bonding. With only three valence electrons, simple covalent bonding is electron deficient with respect to the octet rule." Eek, help! More links please!
  • "Monographs" - Checking a couple, these don't seems to be used in the refs, so are what is normally called "further reading" on WP. This one "Vernon RE 2013, 'Which Elements are Metalloids?', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1703–7, doi:10.1021/ed3008457", at 3-4 pages long, can't really be called a monograph, nor can Goldsmith and Hawkes, where only 2 page ranges are given. Others are sections or chapters in larger, more general, works. I'd just go with "further reading", maybe splitting the true monographs into a sub-section there.
  • Johnbod, my intent here was only to list the known single topic writings on metalloids, of which there are relatively few. I've changed the title of this section to 'Known monongraphs'. Here I'm using the broad meaning of 'monograph', as a written account of a single thing. I've added an explanatory note to that effect. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have split some too long paras and added links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks again. I believe I may be done here for now, unless I happen to see any gremlins. Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently unlinked: oxygen, crystal, semiconductor is apparently only linked in a table - not sure about the rules here, Valence electron, Covalent bond, allotropic, halide. Several if not all of these come from the single para about boron where I asked for more links above. A lot more work is obviously needed here. Some of these may seem very basic terms (but you link "diamond") but they aren't. I still haven't read beyond the boron section, but will do so when assured the linking has been checked throughout the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I missed this one. Have rechecked the article and added more wikilinks. Guidance is that generally, a link should appear only once in an article (upon the term's first occurrence in the text of the article) but if helpful for readers, links can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. And articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles. Have used some judgement in deciding what to link; hopefully no oversights. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Update I have read through the rest of the article, and would have some small points, but I don't know when I'll have time to write them up. The nom seems to have attracted enough support - if the delegates feel it is otherwise ready for promotion, please don't hold that up on my account. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph length (PL)[edit]

Could I please have some opinions about this?

PL has been area of interest to editors and reviewers of this article. Short paragraphs have sometimes been merged; long paragraphs have sometimes been split. All of these changes and associated comments have been well-intentioned. When I look back on them it seems to me they sometimes inadvertently result in paragraphs that cover more than one idea; and at other times they inadvertently split the idea being developed with the result that it becomes harder to comprehend. As well, the end result of some of these edits is that it's no longer possible to follow the bones of the article by reading just the topic/first sentence of each paragraph, which is the way I was taught how to use paragraphs.

Wikipedia guidance about PL is that they should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. All quite reasonable.

The upshot is that I've shortened or merged some of the paragraphs in the article so that (a) each paragraph develops the single idea unit that is flagged in its topic sentence: and (b) there is a logical flow from topic sentence to topic sentence, throughout the article.

I'm hoping that these latest edits will still be FAC-acceptable. Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also an issue of sheer length, especially when the material is dense (for many readers anyway). I split some paras when not editing on my usual machine but one with a smaller (laptop) screen, where with a table or picture at the side some paras lasted a whole screen. Heaven knows what they'd look like on a mobile. Allowing for screen-reading on a vast range of sceen sizes, I would err on the side of short paras, not worrying so much about developments of ideas. The "bones" are supposed to be in the lead anyway, though not all of them. Very long-looking paras just put readers off. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've split or re-split some of the longer paragraphs. I checked the article on a 13.3 notebook; no paras take up a whole screen. Checked on older iphone; most paras (>85%) fit on no more than one screen. Found some interesting external reading about paragraph length here and here. The recommendation you make about erring on the side of short paras, given the rise of small screens, is a good one. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Job done on this, as far as I'm concerned. As with images the multiplicity of screen sizes now has rather over-taken our guidance I think. Useful links. My own style seems to favour short paras, at least online; I was struck after the event by the contrast between my online comment here, #8 in a very narrow space and the preceding 7 in terms of para length. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility[edit]

The colour-keys in the periodic table extracts fail MOS:COLOUR. Non-colour indicators, like asterisks or superscript numbers, should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, this was raised early on in the development of the article. I believe it is addressed in the text boxes accompanying the images in question. This text explains in words which elements are covered by which legend/colour key. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume Sandbh's explanation answers (there is full textual descrtiption below). So it is not "colors only". Can Pigsonthewing agree? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note -- I gave myself a reminder when this was nominated previously that I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be, if promoted, the nominator's first FA. I'll wait a bit to see if any reviewer above wants to undertake that, otherwise I'll make a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]

This is one of the best featured article candidates (FACs) I've ever read! It's properly neutral, has good prose, and is filled with amazing grammar. All the pictures in the article look fascinating, and its worth tons of references everywhere. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind feedback! Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Finishing content[edit]

@John:@Designate:@R8R Gtrs:@Harry Mitchell:@Johnbod:@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever:
I added content re "Pyrotechnics" as a common application (an oversight), and "Abundance, extraction and cost" (polished from an earlier draft). Both copyedited by John. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I copy-edited it again. It is a good addition. --John (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 402[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article as it has been recently promoted to A-class and meets all the standards expected of a Featured Article. The successful promotion of this article would be my and WP:ONRD's fifth FA, the third 400-series FA, and would interconnect Michigan's and Ontario's highway FAs with the future nomination of I-69. Floydian τ ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per my review and spotcheck at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 402. --Rschen7754 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at the ACR and feels it meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments—overall the article looks good, and I'm inclined to support. I have some comments through. Starting with the references:
    • Overall, there's a tendency not to match the case of the titles in the references. This gives an unpolished look compared to APA or Chicago style which directs authors to force sources titled in one case into another. (APA prefers sentence case for journal article titles; Chicago prefers consistently using title case regardless of how the original source was formatted.)
      • As one example, you have "The Corporation Of The City of Sarnia", which in title case would have both instances of of and the second of the in lower case.
      • The press release in footnote 3 is in title case, while the news article in footnote 4 is in sentence case. Can we pick one and harmonize them all to it?
    • "Ontario Ministry of the Environmnet" in footnote 3. Also. "Dr." can be dropped as such titles are normally omitted from names in citations.
    • "pdf" should really be rendered in all caps; it's an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format". That formatting queue should also be added to any citations missing it (footnote 3 again) especially because there is discussion about removing them.
    • Footnote 18: "Press Release - Sarnia to London (Hwy. 402)" it probably would be nice to drop the "Press Release - " from the title since we have (Press release) appearing right afterwards.
    • Footnote 21: "The Observer (Sarnia: Sun Media)" Thank you for including the location, but you can probably drop the publisher.
    • Footnote 25: you should add |link=no to suppress the link on Google there since it's linked in FN 23.
    • Footnote 31: "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S". This is one of those cases where because the citation template applies the period after the quotation mark )per WP:LQ), that I would say you should drop the period and go with "US" instead. Otherwise, "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S.". is your only solution to making the abbreviation not look half punctuated.
    • Footnote 35: "Detroit Free Press (Michigan)" the location there is superfluous unless there's another newspaper called the Detroit Free Press published elsewhere.
    • Footnote 38: that's listing the wrong publication. You've cited an article from The London Free Press that was written by a reporter employed by The Observer of Sarnia. Such crossover is common with papers owned by the same publisher. The Mining Journal here in Marquette, Michigan, reprints articles written for their sister paper The Daily Mining Gazette in Houghton, but I would still cite the specific paper who published the edition of the article I consulted.
    • A request for consideration, but could you include scale information on the map citations? Several citation guides I consulted over the last year for citing maps in APA, MLA or Chicago style (since none of those three guide actually specify directly how to cite maps) recommended "Scale not given" for fixed-scale maps (not dynamic ones like Google Maps). Also, it would be nice if you could supply cartography information, even if it means repeating the name of the publishing organization. (I will list "Michigan Department of Transportation" as the publisher and "MDOT" for the cartography if the map doesn't specify a more specific item to list.)
  • Prose—not much here
    • I noticed that you abbreviated the American Interstates in the lead. It's up to you, but since you listed I-69's full name with the abbreviation, you can probably abbreviate I-94's first mention, even though it's in the same sentence. Then I'd recommend that you abbreviate all of the other mentions for consistency.
    • The sentence stating with "However, construction of a new route known as the Rt. Honourable Herb Gray Parkway ..." can probably be put into a lettered footnote and dropped from the body of the article. As it is, it feels like a tangent and a diversion from the topic, which is the western end of Highway 402. (Use {{#tag:ref| sentence with footnotes|group=lower-alpha}} to embed the cited text into another footnote.)
    • "as a result of the efforts of Lambton Wildlife Inc." can probably also be dropped as getting off topic. (the former rail line aspect of the trail does add some interest, and maybe a link to rail trail is appropriate?)
    • "Planning for the route that would become Highway 402 began following the completion of the Blue Water Bridge in 1938. A divided highway was constructed through Sarnia following World War II; it was completed and designated in 1953.[16] The intent to extend the route to Highway 401 was announced in 1957.[17]" It would read better, and give some more information to readers if you used the active voice here. "X starting planing for the route... " and "Y announced its/their intent to extend..." for example.
    • "Since completion as a four lane route, ..." that needs a hyphen since four-lane is a compound adjective.
    • "Highway 402 is one of the original 400-series highways, having been numbered a year after Highway 400 and Highway 401, in 1953." those two words are unneeded and awkward.
    • "The short 6.1 km (3.8 mi) dual highway" should really be using |adj=on instead of |abbr=on. This level of writing is really better served by spelling out the unit of measurement, something we should only do in tables and infoboxes where space is at a premium. I would change the other measurements to remove the abbreviations as well throughout the prose. [This compares to the "two metres (6 ft)" lower down, which would be "2 m (6 ft)" if you were going to consistently abbreviate.]
    • "Lambton OPP monitored ... " I know OPP = Ontario Provincial Police, but other readers won't.
  • Overall, the article looks good, reads pretty well, and I'm inclined to support promotion once my minor concerns are addressed. Imzadi 1979  05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made all the ref changes. The Google maps titles still use lowercase since they are descriptive titles of my own doing; however, the remainder should be all good now, from what I can see.
  • As for the scales, that will take me time to compile, but I should be able to add it
  • I've abbreviated all the Interstate listings, but I kept the instance in the lede as I feel it looks odd to not have both in full.
  • Regarding switching the one bit to active prose, I don't think much is to be gained since it's just the department of highways in each case. When specific ministers make big announcements, I try to include that, but in this case I've only got maps and dates to go by and no construction companies or specific PR announcements.
  • The rest of the changes have been made. I left OPP abbreviated but linked to it, as "Lambton Ontario Provincial Police" just doesn't read right. The abbreviations should be all fixed (and I agree that they should be written in full, but was encouraged to use abbreviations in my early road-article writing days.
- Floydian τ ¢ 00:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Support—Looks good, so I can't see any reason to hold back promotion now. Imzadi 1979  00:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Scales have been added. As far as I can see, the cartographic information is included, except for the cartoony Point Edward map. The official maps simply say "Cartography by Cartography Section" or "Compiled by [the same]". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim Thome[edit]

Nominator(s): Go Phightins! 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Jim Thome was my favorite player growing up watching baseball, and about 18 months ago, I was determined that he was going to have a fantastic Wikipedia article. Three months later, it finally achieved good article status. Last July, I nominated it for featured status, and its first nomination failed. Since then, I have sought feedback not only from the two editors who reviewed it at the first nomination, but from a few other baseball editors, and I feel it is much improved. As such, I hereby nominate it for FAC2. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful feedback. Go Phightins! 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Go Phightins!. 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, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Player profile: "He is one of few players whose prime was during the steroid era and was never to have been accused of using steroids". The first part of the sentence doesn't work with the second, when the sentence is read as a whole. Would removing "and was" help?
  • Offense: The "47.6% of his career plate appearance have resulted in..." bit needs to be updated to past tense because Thome has retired.
  • Playing characteristics: I see a few other things here that should be moved to past tense, like "His batting stance features him pointing his bat to center field prior to the pitch."
  • Personality: Same might go for the annual high school visits and autographs. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
All addressed. Go Phightins! 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment: I reviewed this article before it came to FAC, and would prefer to wait for a few other commentators before chipping in fully here. Just one thing that I noticed while re-reading, there seem to be an awful lot of sentences, particularly in the lead and first sections, which begin with conjunctions; "after" seems particularly over-used. Might be worth going through and pruning a few of these to give some more variety. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Good observation, Sarastro1, and one I had not noticed. I did try to vary them a little bit. Thanks for bringing that up. Go Phightins! 19:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to make a quick comment - the Player Profile section seems a little scatter-shot at the moment. The first sentence establishes he was a power hitter but then goes into how often he was injured before talking about his career WAR and role in the steroid era. It isn't until the subsequent subsections that detail is offered about offense, defense, etc. Perhaps it would be best to scrap the opening paragraph for parts and move the sentences into the subsections that fit best? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 19:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I am ambivalent; on one hand, you are right that the opening paragraph does not go into much detail, but I looked at it as a "glorified lead" of the subsequent subsections ... perhaps it could just mention that he was confined to DHing as he aged, he vehemently denies using PEDs, and he is an HOF candidate, and save the specific offense/defense stuff for the subsections, and remove the WAR altogether? Go Phightins! 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think any lead paragraph is necessary in the Player profile section. Just start right away with the Offense subsection. Move the injuries info to Defense to give perspective on how it forced him to become DH. If you want, maybe create a Career Perspective subsection to put the steroid era and WAR info - that seems less vital to me but would be perfectly fine to keep. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reworked per your suggestion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Image and source review: Spotchecks not yet done. All the images are appropriately licensed and are properly used. Here are some source issues I found:

  • Not a fan of how the IMDB ref is being used (#5) especially since I'm sure it can just be replaced with one of the many sources already used.
  • Add Fangraphs as publisher for ref #46
  • The Sports Illustrated ref (#48) is missing a title and possibly author. Was it lost in an edit somewhere? Seems like an odd thing to be missing.
  • Not sure how the Dodgers active roster (#59) would work as a ref given it'd just be the current dynamic one. There's already another ref used in the sentence that one's being used in so it can just be removed.

Wizardman 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

All addressed. Not sure what happened with the Sports Illustrated thing. Fixed. Go Phightins! 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Newyorkadam:

  • Please add Alternative Text for all images.
  • Yay, no dead links.
  • Might go over prose later, depends on how busy I am :-) -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Added alt text. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I see a single sentence about a charity project Thome was involved in, but he's clearly active with charity- maybe make a subsection under Personal life section? -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • I think there is a sufficient recurring theme of his philanthropic endeavors, as well as "good guy" personality, throughout the article that a separate section dedicated to philanthropic endeavors is unnecessary. Any other thoughts?
  • Maybe not an entire section, but I personally think a few sentences with references to articles about his activity with charities would improve the article. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • Maybe link to his old official website (archived) in the External links section? -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • I don't really think it is necessary to link to his old website ... meh. It's not in use, and looking at it, not that relevant. Go Phightins! 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero Good job, GP. Standard disclaimer that I am an FA newbie.

  • Early life: In Texas we say snuck all the time, but I think sneaked may be safer.
  • Minor leagues: Is "hitting guru" a direct quote from Thome?
  • 1991-1997: Not sure you need to specify that he got his first hit in his debut if you specify that he went 2-for-4.
  • Preceding the 1996 season... I think you can take out previously from this sentence.
  • 1998-2002: his hometown Peoria - I think a comma or "of" belongs before Peoria.
  • 2006-2009: Is White Sox's the common way to make this a possessive?
  • Second stint with Cleveland: $20,000 seems like a very low cash total one year removed from 25 HR. You mentioned he had become a DH and that he had a no-trade clause. Is there a source you can use to confirm if that was why he was traded for chump change?
  • Post-playing career: I realize this is a recent development, but it seems like such a short section. Maybe this source could help fill it out at least a little?
  • Offense: Throughout his career, Thome has been considered... I think it's okay to change this to "was considered".
  • Personality: Though Thome used a similar phrase, I'm not sure about "exercise in humility" - I usually think of that as a humiliating experience.
  • Career legacy: You mention his future HOF candidacy here and also in the Post-playing career section.

EricEnfermero HOWDY! 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

All concerns addressed. As for the White Sox' vs. White Sox's, I don't know, so I just changed it to Chicago's. I also sought to add some context to what you were confused about with the $20,000 ... you weren't the only one :-) Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments from Coemgenus
  • "Although he had hoped to draw the attention of scouts, his relatively small stature, 6 feet 2 inches (188 cm) and 175 pounds (79 kg), meant that he attracted only passing interest..." This seems surprising. Do you have a source for this? The citation at the end of the sentence only supports the last clause of the sentence.
  • "Thome later said, "[Manuel] saw something in me I didn't."' On my monitor, the quotation mark in this sentence is on one line and the [Manuel] is on the next. I don't know how to make them stay together, but if you or anyone does, it would look better.
  • "Despite Thome's statistical improvement in 1994, it was not until 1995 that the Indians' success led to a playoff berth." I'm not sure one part of this sentence has to do with the other. The team could've been the best in baseball history and still not made the playoffs in 1994, since there were no playoffs that year.
  • "Thome waived his no-trade clause because he thought the Dodgers could reach the World Series, something he had never done during his career..." He played in two World Series, 1995 and 1997. Do you mean to say he thought the Dodgers could win a World Series?
  • Post-playing career: Is there any news of him since he started working for the White Sox? Any rumors of managerial prospects?
  • Other than these quibbles, it looks like an excellent article to me. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The final three are addressed; as for the first two: I don't know what to say with the second one - on my monitor, the quote appears in the middle of a line, but I agree that if the bracket was split from the opening quote, that would be aggravating. On the first, I know I ready something that said that relatively explicitly, and I added another reference to an already used citation that implies the context, but if that is not enough, I will remove it ... can't remember where I specifically read that. Thanks for your comments, Coemgenus! Go Phightins! 01:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Changed to support. If anyone can figure out how to fix that typographical problem, it would be great, but it's not a problem that should keep this from being FA. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: I've commented on this article now a few times, and have done a little copy-editing. It is vastly improved since it came to FAC first time around, and the nominator deserves great credit for his hard work and determination. I think this meets the criteria now. The prose feels like it could still be tightened up in places, but I suspect that may be partly because of ENGVAR things which jar a little to my ear, but are not a problem as such (although "tendency to fly under the radar" could be reworded to be more encyclopaedic). It seems fairly accessible to non-fans, and is certainly comprehensive (although I'll leave it to baseball people to judge this one fully). I'd perhaps like a non-sports person to take a look and see if anything could be tightened, but in all honesty I can find little wrong now, and I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: To me, the article has shown steady improvement over a long period of time. It now reads easily, providing a comprehensive overview of Thome's life and career. While the language remains accessible to the non-fan, even the serious baseball fan would not be left wanting for significant information about the subject. On the typographical issue, would it be out of line to move the word Manuel outside of the quotes? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • A general comment to reviewers and editors: What do you think of the images? I am not sold on the one in the infobox being the one in the infobox, but am unsure as to which image might be better. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 21:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with it myself, as it is a recent photo of his later playing career. I notice that the 1993 photo has lost some sharpness due to extreme cropping, but I don't see a great photo from his Cleveland days on Commons that could be used to replace it. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 20:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes

  • Go Phightins, I believe this would be your first successful FAC nom if promoted? That being the case I'd like to see an editor do a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If none of the reviewers above is able to volunteer, we'll list a request at WT:FAC.
  • Also you have several duplicate links in the article. This script highlights the dups, so pls review and see if any are really necessary.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Duplinks addressed, and yes, this would be my first FA, however I have done 15 successful GAs, and never had any issues with close paraphrasing, so unless I inherited some that I did not check when I started this article, I don't think there should be any issues. That said, someone is more than welcome to check. Go Phightins! 16:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
No reason to think it won't be fine, but it is a ritual we like to put people through when they're new to FAC (and even older hands every so often). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from TonyTheTiger
  • In the Professional career section, when you are talking about a specific season for a team, you should link the team-season article rather than the franchise article. The franchise article is not the proper resource for that kind of content. E.G., he debuted with the 1991 Twins, a team that was a world series champion a few weeks later. You should also clarify if he was on the post season roster for the WS champs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • See below ... no idea where you are getting this Twins stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Somehow the text has him debuting for the Twins and then playing for the 1992 Indians (link needed) without any transaction detail. Very odd for a FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Where do you see him playing for the Twins; his debut was against the Twins?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Several other team-season links are needed in this context. Most season with the Indians seem to have enough text that the team season should also be linked with the text. Yes Doherty pitched for the Tigers, but it is the 1994 Tigers article that would have any hope of contextualizing Doherty's team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Did some season linking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)
You need to be careful. In [[1997 Cleveland Indians season|1997]], the Indians results in an WP:EASTEREGG. In 1997, [[1997 Cleveland Indians season|the Indians]] would be better. In other instances try to reword the text rather than pipe the YYYY numbers. (e.g. 1999 equally problematic). Seeing the number linked might lead the reader to think it is a MLB year or year in baseball article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
How are the links now? Go Phightins! 20:56, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)
Each season that is currently piped under the word season without either Cleveland or Indians remains an WP:EASTEREGG to be confused with MLB year or year in baseball. You need to be piping under either Cleveland or Indians, preferably the YYYY Indians or YYYY Cleveland team or season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to go through and change every paragraph to say, for example, Thome participated in Cleveland's 1995 season. At this point, I am inclined to unlink them all. Go Phightins! 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be no harder to do it without WP:EASTEREGG than the with them. Just wondering what MOS issue Secret is talking about below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Go Phigtins!, in fact your suggestion violates WP:MOS on dates and numbers. Secret account 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
On what basis does the suggestion violate MOS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, after leading two-games-to-none, Cleveland lost the series"- I can't remember if this was the 5-game or 7-game series era so clarify this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Um. The series page is linked, so anyone who is interested can click. Nevertheless, I clarified in context. Go Phightins! 20:56, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Undisclosed, I believe. So no, I don't have a number. Source says "generous, long-term contract from the Indians".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)
  • "undisclosed generous" is O.K. with proper citation. Saying he turned down an offer leaves the reader wondering why you won't say what it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The article I initially read, indicated that you were an excellent writer. However this edit introduces one of the most awkward phrases I have ever heard and it verges on being ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, if you have a better way of phrasing it, more power to you, but that way was completely grammatically correct. I reverted for now. Go Phightins! 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Red XN still not fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "This was the third time in Thome's career that his team had opened a new stadium – the 1994 Cleveland Indians when they opened Jacobs Field and the 2004 Philadelphia Phillies when they opened Citizens Bank Park." We need some more WP:ICs for this. Shouldn't these prior occurrences be chronologically mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "opportunity to reunite with former Cleveland teammates Manny Ramirez and Casey Blake" Was Thome friends with either of these players?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not specifically, to the best of my knowledge. The article just comments that the players were reunited from over a decade ago, which seems noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)
Citing "Thome hit his first home run with the Twins on April 8" with Baseball-Reference.com is not what is best. BR is regarded as a passable source in a pinch. However, many reviewers question the quality of the editorial process at BR and thus on a scale of 1 to 10, BR falls somewhere in the middle. BR should only be used as a source when more reliable sources are not available. I am sure you can find an Associated Press recap of this 2010 game on ESPN.com because I rely on ESPN regularly for my citations. I don't use MLB.com, but imagine they also have a citation for this fact. Both of those sources would be 10s on a RS scale. NYTimes.com may even have a recap of the game discussing this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Baseball Reference is a reliable source by any standards, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Secret account 19:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have about 100-200 sports WP:GAs and a handful of sports WP:FAs. This is what I have been told in the past about Sports-reference (the parent company). I have been getting this type of feedback for years, starting with my Tyrone Wheatley FA review. I can't remember my more recent ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
During that review, I was literally told to replace every possible sports-reference ref with a higher quality ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
OK - a few responses: that was six years ago, there was a contradiction even then, I have never seen anyone question Baseball-Reference, other than you, right now, and the root of your objection seems to be something from pro-football-reference six years ago, and even in that FAC, Sports Illustrated confirms its reliability, even to the satisfaction of the person who initially raised the objection. So why are you upset with it being used here? Go Phightins! 19:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I remember having to replace citations more than I remember the support from SI. I have gotten flak from using sports-reference.com in other reviews, but I can't recall which ones. Wheatley was the first. Keep in mind what the premise of WP:RS is. WP is suppose to summarize the reliable sources and those sources are deemed reliable based on the quality of their editorial process. BR seems to be a guy who puts together information from a lot of sources (see here). There is no real evidence of an editorial process. This is why people don't always like the various sports-reference resources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Look at the names on the list. The work of Pete Palmer, the editor of Who's Who in Baseball, a published resource that is also cited in the article, is "the basis for the Lahman database, and he has provided data to this site". The original founder of the site has a PhD in applied math or something of that nature, and the site is part of the FOX Sports network. Unless you can find some specific objections, specific pieces of information that are incorrect on the site, or otherwise specifically impeach the credibility of the resource, please refrain from calling it "adequate" or otherwise deriding its usage, as it has been a cornerstone of the WP:BASEBALL editorial process for years, and has been deemed in that project one of the leading resources for information. Specific information to the contrary is welcome; vague references to FACs from six years ago from which you cannot remember specific circumstances are not. I will seek to address your linking concerns within the next few days. Go Phightins! 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
BR is acceptable as a source for many types of facts and many WP:MLB articles cover pre-internet subjects, it has become "a cornerstone of the WP:BASEBALL". For many topics, there is just not an easily accessible source. If we were writing about Frank Robinson, I might not even mention a reliance on BR. I have done a few GAs on pre-internet subjects and do in fact rely on BR. Hector Lopez comes to mind in fact. There aren't a lot of sources that describe him as the third outfielder in of the Mantle-Maris era Yanks the way I am able to do by pointing to BR stats. Please note that WP:RS says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." There is no claim that Sean Forman is an authoritative baseball figure. Sports-reference presents no documentation of an editorial process for any of its sites, BR included. What we have is a guy who gathers a whole bunch of other sources and assimilates them. He is basically doing what wikipedians do with reliable sources. WP would not cite another wiki as a reliable source. A diligent assembler of good sources is not a "reliable publication process". Because the sources are so good and much of the resulting content is unlikely to be wrong or misleading, we accept it in most cases. However, when possible we should defer to more reliable sources. The first B-R fact that I saw when I glanced over at the article moments ago was "He hit a solo home run in the AL Central Tiebreaker game, which proved to be the difference as the White Sox defeated the Minnesota Twins, 1–0." This is a 2008 Wild Card playoff game. Yes, you could source this with the current B-R.com reference. However, there are a dozen other sources you could use. You could go to ESPN and use either the box score or the Associated Press recap. Using either of these would put the reader in a tabbed environment with the other easily accessible. You could source it with the MLB.com recap. The second or third place I would look would be the New York Times. There are a bunch of other sources that you could check, including NBC Sports, CBS Sports, CNN/SI, etc. Some of these will also rely on the Associated Press as ESPN does and others will have their own writers. However, all of these would be source with both "a reliable publication process" and "authors who are regarded as authoritative". The BR source is in truth neither "a reliable publication process" nor "authors who are regarded as authoritative". Thus, as I said before I would pursue replacing as many BR refs as possible with Associated Press recaps at ESPN, MLB.com or NYTimes.com. For preinternet facts, I would not press you, bu tin this case, there is little reason to relegate ourselves to BR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose Largely due to inadequate WP:ICs. This is a modern day player. Many of his accomplishments have easily findable online refs. I think I could easily tag two dozen sentences in the Professional career section with {{fact}}. In the "Minnesota Twins (2010–2011)" subsection there are easily a half dozen specific facts that I can not really WP:V. Things that happened on April 12, 2010, April 8, August 17, September 4, January 2011, etc. all need ICs. These are things in the current decade that I am sure have dedicated ESPN.com and MLB.com stories. It is inexcusable for such a modern events not to be WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • EricEnfermero has done some terrific work adding sources (thanks Eric!); let me know if you find other specific omissions in terms of sources ... I think the reason some of them are missing sources is that, at one point, this article relied predominantly upon a JockBio biography, which has since been removed. Over the last several months, I have been replacing those, but obviously have missed some. Thanks for pointing that out, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 17:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically, I would ask that you yourself go back through the entire professional career section. Look at each sentence and ask yourself it is a fact that likely has a story online in a WP:RS. If so, if the fact currently does not have a WP:IC, find one. I really should not have to run through each paragraph like I did for the one I presented. Everything for the last 10 or 12 years certainly should have an online story. I am pretty sure ESPN game recaps from the Associated Press go back about that far. The writing is excellent. However, in terms of WP:V, the article has a lot of room to improve.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • More examples of things that need citation (and possibly more detail):
  • "Injuries shortened his 1992 campaign,"
  • "Thome had his first career multi-home run game"
  • Cited with home run log ... easily discerned from there; Google News archive, however, is no longer particularly accessible, so alternate news article would be difficult to ascertain (I perused HighBeam for a moment, and did not find any)
  • The daily Associated Press American League round up is a much better source. Something is wrong with one of the citations for this fact. It seems to be broken. However, what you need to track a lot of older facts is a way to find the daily American or National League roundup from the Associated Press. It seems that the Los Angeles Times is one of the newspapers that prints this roundup daily and has online archives going back to the early 1990s. Each day you are looking for a link like this. Then find whichever roundup you need. Probably any fact notable enough to be in the WP article should be in the AP daily league roundup. E.g., see his 1st multi-homer game recap. If you use the league roundup, we don't have to deal with how WP defines a WP:RS. No one is going to question anything from the AP in the LA Times. By the early or mid 2000s you can find every game recap on ESPN.com--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "It was not until 1995 that the Indians' success led to a playoff berth." I am sure there are newspaper stories that say this was the Indians first playoff appearance in X years.
  • Not really relevant how long it has been since they made the playoffs; he wasn't on the team the last time, but cited to Who's Who in Baseball anyway.
  • "Thome led the team by hitting .314 with 25 home runs and 73 RBIs"
I will begin to lean more strongly on the oppose if this article does not pursue WP:V with WP:ICs from WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
A few more citations have been added. Phightins is Gone (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Source spotcheck: I checked the following sources: 3, 4, 21, 41, 50, 60, 78, 102, 105, 115, and 137, chosen randomly excluding the first two. The duplication detector showcased nothing of worry, but more importantly everything noted in the article is seen in the references, and written in the writer's own words. The only nitpick I have is that i see that Joe Posnanski's article on Thome at 40 is in the article a few times. Technically, it's referenced by each of the four Sports Illustrated pages so it's okay as is in my book, but if anyone else has an issue then that might need tweaking. Either way I'm entirely fine with how the well-cited article as is on that front. Wizardman 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I asked to do a spot check being an "expert" in this field, all the information matches, everything is accurate, easily among Wikipedia's best written work and I recommend one of the FAC delegates to ignore TonyTheTiger's comments above as his review is based on his personal opinion and not rooted in policy. Secret account 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not basing my review on personal opinion, but rather personal experience in WP reviews. I can add a couple dozen {{fact}} tags to the article to demonstrate its deficiencies, but we have not gotten to that point. I have issues with lack of ICs, use of BR and team season issues. You should not ignore my whole review due to a disagreement on one issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • All right. Can we please hammer out this issue on the reliability of Baseball Reference? I posed several points above, and am more than willing to go to WT:BASEBALL or the reliable sources noticeboard should you really wish to challenge the reliability of the site, but it is plainly evident throughout a myriad of FAs that it has been deemed reliable, possibly even including some you have supported. What exactly is your issue with it? Go Phightins! 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Addendum: You have cited it numerous times in your current FAC too ... Go Phightins! 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
        • 1988 is pre-internet. By the time Thome got to a point in his career where he was hitting milestones we were in the internet era. I said I have been told to replace it in places where it can be easily done. IIRC, even the Wheatley article retains some sports-reference.com sources that weren't easily replaced. BR is an adequate source, but it should not be used when other far superior sources exist that have clear editorial processes are available.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment as WP:CHICAGO director I rarely get involved in FAC discussions for our project. However, the lack of WP:V for this article is basically a state of emergency. The prose is of such good quality that I feared the article would pass without meeting a standard that goes beyond the old "Brilliant Prose" that once was approved at WP:FAC. However, now that we require WP:ICs for every fact in the article, many WP:RS need to be added to this article to differentiate it from the WP:FAs of years gone by. I have stepped in to attempt to guide the development of this article. Progress is not being made in any direction that is encouraging. Thus, I have downgraded my Leaning Oppose to a full Oppose. I will begin adding {{fact}} throughout the article by the end of the week if progress is not made. I don't want this to be the only WP:CHICAGO FA from this decade that does not meet WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a plethora of inline citations in this article, and I have read through it several times trying to discern exactly what you want cited, and I think perhaps some of the confusion may be that multiple sentences are supported by a single ref, at least one of which is offline, which may cause confusion. I do find your prevailing sentiment of "I am here from WP:CHICAGO to save Wikipedia from promoting a crappy FA" to be rather unnecessarily unnecessary (I will stipulate that isn't exactly brilliant prose there smile) ... this article has been through a rigorous GA review, a PR and a de facto second PR, and this FAC, which has included several commentators, including one who did a source spotcheck, that have not shared your concerns, so I am rather torn as to an appropriate course of action in this situation, as you seem to be the only one that thinks one must cite that the sky is blue. Fine, tag them with fact tags, but that really borders on disruptive. You are more than welcome to list on this page what you think needs cited (yes, I know there are 4 items above at which I have not yet had time to look), but introducing tags throwing the credibility of an already good article (see Talk:Jim Thome/GA1 - it was hardly a rubber stamp) is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The edits by EricEnfermero were a step in the right direction. The subsequent edits have not really helped out to much. If you don't see things that are not WP:V, then I will have to {{fact}}. You can try to waive the WP:BLUE wand if you like when I do, but I am pretty experienced at GA. Obviously you can remove all the ones that are cited in a broader WP:IC. It might be better if you had Eric go through all the other sections and do what he did in the section that I pointed out. Obviously he understood the relevance of WP:V, even if you don't. WP:BLUE has little to do with this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Some more citation work done; for the record, for edits that have "not helped out to [sic] much", you have stricken several of your concerns. Go Phightins! 20:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The ESPN articles provide the date of the game, but not the date of the recap, which could be either the date of the game, or the date of the wee hours of the subsequent morning. Go Phightins! 21:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Game date is O.K. since even night games start at 7 or 8 local time. Not too many games go past 4 or 5 hours and recaps are up on line within 10 or 15 minutes after the game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
All right, though I know for the Phillies.com recaps, Todd Zolecki usually posts them at about 1:00 AM (e.g., [http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_04_14_atlmlb_phimlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=phi this one was posted at 1:45 the next day). It seems to me that speculating on when the report might have been posted is not necessary because a) in line, the citations are generally included after mentioning a date, and b) if the reader clicks on the link, they will see the day that the recap is recapping, and can go from there; some ESPN articles say "date published" on the right side under the title, but these do not, so I am inclined to leave it go, unless that's a sticking point for you. Go Phightins! 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
MLB.com may have a different deadline structure than the Associated Press. Usually within about 15 minutes there is a sketch of the recap. It might take an hour or so for the final version of the full story, but it is acceptable to use the game date, IMO. That is what I always use. BTW edit summaries like this that say "before I'm told this needs a citation" present a really bad attitude. You are not adding citations so that I am happy. We add ICs so that the reader is happy when he can WP:V. You are not adding citations to make me happy with your FA nomination today. You are adding them so that every person who reads the article going forward can WP:V things from a WP:RS. This is not a you vs. me thing. This is a you and the reader thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I apologize for the edit summary ... I was just somewhat frustrated. That citation, frankly, is probably extraneous, as the subsequent citations cover it, but the impression I got reading your earlier comments was that every sentence needed a citation immediately after it, which was the frustrating part for me. Perhaps this was a false impression, but a couple of the things you previously mentioned were cited in subsequent sentences, so I was not sure. I will add the game dates as dates for the references. Go Phightins! 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

All right. I added the dates. I have read through the article three times now looking for things that might possibly need citations, and have not found much. At this point, go ahead and compile a list (here preferably rather than fact tags, but I suppose whichever, as I am free for another couple of hours and can remove them in short order) of what still needs cited. Also, I have tried to tweak a few season links, but am struggling to work the year, team and "season" all into a sentence for a few of the links without sounding choppy and awkward. Go Phightins! 22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have a couple of hours please fix some of the older refs too. Many of them also need dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed all the ones I caught. Go Phightins! 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
When I looked at the footnotes, I saw bunches of them like 25, 26, 27, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with 25-27? They all have dates, and look like they have necessary information to me? I caught several that were missing dates, and I am sure someone who has worked on as many GAs and whatnot as you can empathize with the nauseating feeling that comes after looking at a reflist for a while, so I got Wizardman to look in IRC, and he found a few more, so I believe all have dates, at least that we caught. Go Phightins! 10:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies about 25-7. Your box scores don't have publisher dates, also what about 40.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Ref 94 is obsolete. 114 may be as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
119 supports 19 not 20.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you update these numbers? I think I removed what used to be 94, but am unsure. Which one is 114, 119, and 120 now? Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Go to the history and find the proper version.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really feel inclined to do that, as nothing is jumping out at me in the references in that area right now. If you still have a concern with those references, please be specific about which ones they are. Go Phightins! 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously saying that you think it is my responsibility to keep track of what the numbers are. At 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I complained about 40, 94, 114 and 119. You have fixed one of those and responded to several other concerns often by adding refs. Thus, three of these remain unaddressed. All you have to do is go to the history tab in Thome's article and find the last version before this time and see which references were at those 4 numbers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think when those reference numbers change, since you best know what you are talking about, it might be mildly courteous to just repeat them with new numbers rather than send me guessing into the article history ... some times on this site appear in EDT for me, while others in UTC because of something I set at one point that I really should unset, but anyway, the numbers do not appear to match up for me, so I was merely asking if you still remembered what references you had concerns with. Go Phightins! 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
40 is now 42, 114 now 118, 119 now 123.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My best guess is that this, which is in the neighborhood of 40, is a concern, but I don't know why, as it is appropriately cited, and is static. I guess 114 might be the ESPN scouting report, which, though I am an ESPN insider, I cannot view for some reason at the moment. Whaddya think of Fangraph's reliability? I can try there ... I have no idea what your issue with this is. Are you talking about this? That would make sense, and I see what you are saying. Fixed. Go Phightins! 13:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey Tony, I see your post, and will take another look later this evening (hopefully). I am off to Maundy Thursday services at church now, and we are eating afterwards, though, so it might not be until tomorrow. Are there any other facts in the article that you think need citations? Go Phightins! 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I will am reading the career section closely looking for uncited facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Thome made his MLB debut on September 4, 1991, as a third baseman against the Minnesota Twins."-not sourced--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The game box score is there, which indicates that he played third base, and his BR page is now there to confirm that was the date of his debut. Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "For the 2001 Indians' season, he finished second in the AL with 49 home runs. In addition, Thome had 124 RBIs and 111 walks. However, he led the league with 185 strikeouts. He and Juan Gonzalez, who totaled 140 RBIs, powered the Indians to another division title." seems to have several uncited facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Source added (not really added, source already in the article cited again) Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "finishing one behind Mike Schmidt's single-season team record of 48 in 1980"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Was implied in the source given, but added Schmidt's BR page for additional verification. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • What am I missing? Does the MLB.com article say something about him falling one short of the record. From the 3 citations, I can see that it was one short of Schmidt's total, but how do we know 48 was the record at the time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
          • You're correct. I misread the ref, thinking it was talking about season home runs, not career home runs. Fixed now.
    • "first ever to do it with a walk-off home run" appears to be source to the immediately-subsequent IC, but I don't see the fact in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, it was not in the article; good catch. However, it was in a game recap, which is now added. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "It was the 12th walk-off home run of his career, tying him for the most all-time."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Citation added.
  • A couple of times when he was injured, you never say what the injury was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Injuries are covered ad nauseam in the player profile section ... for the "injuries shortened his 1992 campaign", I have only information that he was on the disabled list, no indication why, and since the Google News Archive is essentially closed, I have little recourse to find why. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • you mention "rising young stars" and then say "Led by this group of players". You never name the rising stars.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah. good catch. A list of players was there a few days ago, but I reworded per a suggestion from another editor. Fixed (though check wording - seems a little ... meh ... not terrific to me). Feel free to boldly change. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Are you saying you were asked to remove the list of players by another editor? Who was in the list?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Wizardman, Secret, and I were in the wiki-baseball IRC channel discussing the article, and Wizardman was offering some minor copyediting suggestions, one of which had to do with this sentence: "In the 1994 offseason, Cleveland made several acquisitions in an attempt to compete after seven consecutive seasons with a losing record. Sandy Alomar Jr., Kenny Lofton, Carlos Baerga, and Mark Clark were brought in to join Thome and 22-year-old Manny Ramirez.[15]" (appears in this revision). I believe Secret opined that those were not all household names, and Wizardman commented that it wasn't technically correct, as at least one of those players had already been there, so we agreed the best course of action would be to direct quote the article rather than the former wording, which was somewhat synthesis (in all honesty, I don't remember why the list of names was ever there ... it could have been me a long time ago, or not me even a longer time ago). Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Details like who the heck you are talking about are important to a reader. The list needs to be there for the reader. He is not going to know who you are talking about unless you tell him. He should want to know who you are talking about and you should tell him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • OK, but the article doesn't list names, and I don't know how they got there ... they are not sourced, so I can list who some new acquisitions were and cite it to, I don't know, BR, or something, but that's still synthesizing the meaning of the article, and probably is a violation of WP:NOR. If you look at the article (which I just did to refresh myself), there is somewhat of a positional blow-by-blow, but it does not encompass the names that were previously listed. Let me reword the sentence to see what I can do that will not be original research/synthesis, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 12:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
              • I see Alomar and Carlos Baerga joined the Indians in 1990 and Lofton in 92 and Clark in 1993. I suggest that you remove "With help from the aforementioned acquisitions and young stars,"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
                • That should read "with the help of the aforementioned core". Oh, I see why it doesn't; that edit is in my editing window, but I never saved it. Done. What about Fangraphs? Go Phightins! 13:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • The ESPN scouting report now loads for me, so I updated that piece of information to reflect the end of his career, and now we are good on that front. I think that all your reference concerns are now addressed, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • First use of The Plain Dealer should be linked rather than later use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed both in the body of the article, and in the citations. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wizardman is your Source spotcheck considered the source review for this FAC? If so can you give me an explanation of condoning rampant use of Baseball-reference.com I have argued that its use should be minimized in my 06:00, 14 April 2014 post. Please note that WP:RS says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." I don't see how BR qualifies on either count, but understand its favorable track record for reliability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    You're the only one that seems to have a problem with baseball-reference, which has long been established as reliable for statistics. If what you're looking for is sources noting the site's reliability, then here's some: [26][27]. Sure it's nice to cite news sources themselves for numbers, but there's no issue in using it to note season totals, records, and the like. Plus it's used 12 times out of 151 sources (not counting the same source used multiple times), so a 10% usage rate is certainly not rampant. Wizardman 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    My problem is that despite its good reputation, it is not an RS by definition. Second, although BR is acceptable to use because it is reliable, it would be an improvement to use better sources because for many of the facts cited by BR a source with prose contextualizing the fact while also providing verification would be superior to just BR's statistical verification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree that it does not meet the definition of a reliable source. It has an incredibly strong reputation per the aforementioned articles from Wizardman. According to WP:SOURCE, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." Sports Illustrated is undoubtedly a "respected mainstream publication" that praises Baseball-Reference. Moreover, it certainly does not meet any of the negative criteria in WP:NOTRELIABLE. Moreover, you stipulated "BR is acceptable to use because it is reliable"; I see absolutely no need whatsoever to go digging through archives to contextualize stats. At the end of the day, Baseball-Reference is being used in this article to cite statistics. Using it as a source violates no policies, it is a top-notch source for baseball statistics, and there is no compelling reason other than personal preference to unequivocally abandon it and go digging for other sources that are no more reliable. By the way, I believe your above concerns are addressed. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Do you understand the value of contextualizing facts to the reader? Saying "I see absolutely no need whatsoever to go digging through archives to contextualize stats" sounds off to me. Look back at the refs I offered above for his first multihomer game versus the BR citation you are using. Think about what the references offer the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    In some situations, I agree that contextualizing facts is important. However, for example, in none of the five instances his BR page (just the normal page) is used, do I think there is need to dig for increased contextualization. In some of the games, would it be nice? Perhaps, but nowhere in the FA criteria does it stipulate "references must be appropriately contextualized", so to hold up this FAC over that is not exactly helpful. What other concerns do you have about the article meeting those criteria? Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas F. Bayard[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Thomas F. Bayard: 19th-century American legislator and diplomat. A Democratic senator from Delaware, he spent most of his legislative career opposing things: civil rights, Reconstruction, tariffs, silver coinage, and pretty much anything the Republicans were for. As a diplomat, he pursued closer relations with Britain, along with trade and peace with the rest of the world. He was thoroughly reactionary, even by the standards of his time. I hope he proves an interesting subject for you. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (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, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Ambassador caption shouldn't end in period
  • The author of Bayard's signature is unknown? Either it's Bayard, or that isn't his signature
    • Of course you're right. Forgot to check that one. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Thomas_Francis_Bayard_Vanity_Fair_28_June_1894.jpg: source link is dead
    • I updated the link. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:StephenGroverCleveland.png needs US PD tag
  • File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate.svg: what is the copyright status of the seal design? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Another version of it says its {{PD-USGov}}, which seems right to me. I'll look it to it more deeply, if you'd like. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, the Senate website says it was design for the Senate in 1885. An older version of that page shows the seal, too, so it's clear they're talking about the same one. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments, leaning support. Usual batch of quibbles, of which this is the first tranche.
Lede
  • The problem with the first paragraph is there are too many numbers "three" and "four" denoting political statistics. Suggest the prose be played with a bit, perhaps it isn't necessary to say four year term re SecState, but simply give the years, 1885 to 1889. Your use of the word "term" may be slightly misleading the reader into thinking it is appointment for a set term (like, say, the Fed Chairlady these days) when it was at the pleasure of the President.
  • It should be less numerical now, and clearer about the Sec State appointment. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Early life etc.
  • There is something of a menagerie of Bayards in the first paragraph. Part of the problem is that you are insisting on calling him Bayard. It might be best to call him Thomas here, and that could make things a bit less daunting.
  • I thought there was some MoS taboo against calling the subject by his first name, but I couldn't find it. I changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "and rose quickly in the legal profession.[5] In 1853, he was appointed United States Attorney for Delaware" While I have no doubt he was a fine lawyer indeed, would it not be more plausible that he gained the position through the fact that the Democrats had just regained power in Washington and Pops Bayard was a prominent Democrat? Also you might want to make clear whether the US Attorney position was part-time or full-time, did he continue in his law firm?
  • I added the bit about his appointment being related to a Democrat winning the 1852 election, but I can't find anything about the post being full- or part-time. The sources I have are very brief when it comes to his early life. I'll look around to see if I can find more.--Coemgenus (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "a partnership that would last until Shippen's death in 1858" Given it only lasted four years, I'm not sure I like the phrasing, since usually "that would last until … " presages something a little more dramatic.
Civil War etc.
  • The fact that Pops and Tom Bayard stayed north and voted on the nomination of Douglas is significant, they could have gone south and supported Breckinridge. Perhaps a bit more text could be devoted to this. I did get a slight giggle out of the description of Douglas as "eventual nominee", given it took two conventions, but of course there were eventually two nominees!
  • I added a bit about the party split. The sources are maddeningly vague about the Bayards' role in the 1860 campaign. Tansill never mentions Breckenridge by name, and mostly cites James Bayard's letters about his despair for the Union and how much he hates abolitionists. I really wish there was a modern bio, Tansill is very frustrating to read. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you are not adequately getting across the status of Delaware as a Southern state without (or with very few) slaves and northern weather. People today think of Delaware as an ugly city, uglier interstates, speed traps and toll booths, and little different from the North.
  • I added some about Delaware's odd position as a barely enslaved slave state. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "He also condemned the impeachment proceedings against President Andrew Johnson, " In the same speech? Because impeachment hadn't gone too far by then.
  • No, it was later. I modified the text to reflect that. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain it could be said that Johnson foiled Congress's plans. The other way around to some extent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed "foiled" to "threatened," since they did all right in spite of Johnson. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'll address these over the weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Resuming
Gold standard
  • I think you should mention the passage of the Specie Payments Resumption Act, at present, it's only piped in the image caption and should be linked in text.
  • "In short, silver miners receive a silver dollar in exchange for bullion worth somewhat less than that, selling the government metal worth fifty to seventy cents, and receiving back a silver dollar. " For all intents and purposes, this sentence describes the same transaction twice.
  • I think I fixed the duplication. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " William B. Allison, a Republican from Iowa, agreed, and led the effort in the Senate.[59] Allison offered an amendment in the Senate requiring the purchase of two to four million dollars per month of silver, but not allowing private deposit of silver at the mints." Accordingly, Allison did not agree, at least with free silver.
  • Removed "agreed" and changed the sentence to be more accurate, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
1880
  • " In fact, the Potter committee had the opposite effect, as they uncovered telegrams" The pronoun should be "it" but perhaps the sentence is better recast.
  • Yes, I reworded it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Surplus
  • I find no discussion here of Bayard's service as president pro tempore. I see it in the infobox, and I'm guessing that the brief tenure was because of the tie between the parties in the Senate, now that there was no VP.
Yes, I missed that that was even in the info box. I added it to the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
1884
  • "Blaine's nomination turned many reform-minded Republicans away from their party, and Bayard and Cleveland were most likely to attract their votes." Why those two?
  • They were seem as less corrupt than the average politician, and corruption is what turned the Mugwumps away from Blaine. I clarified it, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Relations etc.
  • The first paragraph needs dates when this was occurring
  • Added one - 1887. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ambassador
  • "to the British Foreign Minister (by this time Lord Salisbury) on August 7, 1895" Salisbury was also PM.
  • Right, good point. Added it.
That's all I have. Enjoyed reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thorough review, I'm glad you enjoyed it! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support well done. I've emailed you a couple of articles with glancing mentions to Bayard that you might find helpful, or perhaps not.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Got 'em, thanks. I'll take a look at them over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Can "suzerainty" be either linked or alternately phrased?
    • I linked it. I think suzerainty is the best way to describe what the Germans wanted. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The paragraph it's in is very long, anyhow. I'd recommend splitting it at "Shortly thereafter".
    • Good point. I split it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the lame duck 49th Congress" - seems a little informal, unless "lame duck" is a well-used political term outside my knowledge. (I took AP U.S. Gov and have never heard it.)
    • It was more common before the 20th amendment, but it still happens. I linked the term. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Charles C. Tansill, a conservative historian, found much to praise in Bayard and wrote two volumes about him in the 1940s" - Can you elaborate a little?
    • I expanded this part with some more detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bayard served on the Electoral Commission that decided the disputed 1876 presidential election." - I feel like the caption could be a bit more detailed regarding, if available, Bayard's role on it and the election's importance.
    • Bayard was just one of fifteen members who heard evidence and voted on the disposition of the disputed electoral votes. He didn't have any special role beyond that. I'm not sure what else to add without the caption getting too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of Reconstruction, you can replace one or two of the "his son"s with "Thomas".
  • "The couple would go on to have twelve children." - Name Thomas Jr. here and give a brief mention of what he would become, and is there information on any of his other children?
    • I mentioned Junior and his career at the end. Do you think it's better here? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why isn't The New York Times linked?
  • Same with the other publications. I assume at least some have Wikipedia articles.
    • You mean the journals? I don't think I've seen it done that way before. Not sure of the MoS conventions, but I'll look into it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Irish-Americans should also be linked.
  • What'd Bayard do in the Senate from 1874 to 1875? The end of "Reaction to Reconstruction" leaves me wondering.
    • Congress only met for a few months in 1875 (January to March, then again in December.) Other than voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1875, I don't think he did much of note. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What evidence is there that Bayard was an Episcopalian?
    • His biographer doesn't mention religion much, but Bayard was buried in an Episcopal cemetery. I haven't seen anything to suggest he professed any other faith than that. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "As war threatened" - Seems awkward, or at least incomplete.
  • Tamasese is redlinked. Not against the rules, I think, but not pleasing to the eyes either.
    • I think redlinks encourage article creation. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tezero: thanks for your review. I'll address all of these over the next couple of days. I think that's all of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; looks good to me. Tezero (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

God of War III[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2010 video game, God of War III. I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it is ready to become an FA. --JDC808 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: JDC808. 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, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: As per what I said in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/God_of_War_III/archive2, since I have not noted any huge changes. Only one minor point: I might rephrase the piece for the QTE screenshot, just referring to Hercules as a boss rather than by his name. It makes the screenshot seem too involved in the narrative for where it is in the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Instead of removing his name, I added "boss character" before it. I'd like to keep his name because I'm sure people who haven't played this would be interested in knowing what he looks like. --JDC808 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Even though I believe the gameplay section is over detailed, the article satisfies FA criteria for comprehension and references. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll read over the gameplay section a couple times to see if I can trim it back some. --JDC808 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; After a few minutes with the article, I don't have any complaints. (It's no secret that I'm a fan of citations for plot sections, but that's far from official policy.) Well-written and complete. Good job. Tezero (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. If I can find citations that can be used for plot sections, I'll use them, otherwise it's kinda hard to find them unless you cite the game itself. --JDC808 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Citing the game, period, would be a little ridiculous. I cite specific quotes from the game. Tezero (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I do if I use the game as a source. --JDC808 07:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Support: JDC808, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions I think will be useful in improving the article.

WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis for the Development and the Release. Can these points be expanded a bit in the lead?

  • Major Point 1: Gameplay "The gameplay is similar to the previous installments, and focuses on combo-based combat, achieved through the player's main weapon—the Blades of Exile—and secondary weapons acquired throughout the game. It features quick time events that require the player to complete various game controller actions in a timed sequence to defeat stronger enemies and bosses. The player can use up to four magical attacks and a power-enhancing ability as alternative combat options. The game also features puzzles and platforming elements. In addition to its similar gameplay, it features a revamped magic system, an increase in the number of onscreen enemies, further interaction with the environment, new camera angles, and downloadable content." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 2: Synopsis "Loosely based on Greek mythology, the game is set in ancient Greece with vengeance as its central motif. The player controls the protagonist, Kratos, the former God of War, after his betrayal by his father Zeus, the King of the Olympian Gods. Reigniting the Great War, Kratos ascends Mount Olympus with his initial allies, the Titans, until he is abandoned by Gaia. Now guided by the spirit of Athena to search for the Flame of Olympus, Kratos battles monsters, gods, and Titans in a search for Pandora, the key to pacifying the flame surrounding Pandora's Box, and to defeat Zeus. Successful, Kratos kills Zeus and ends the reign of the Olympian Gods." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 3: Development "First released for the PlayStation 3 (PS3) console on March 16, 2010, the game is the fifth installment in the God of War series, the seventh and final chronologically, and the sequel to God of War and God of War II." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 4: Release "The best-selling game in the God of War series, it sold nearly 5.2 million copies worldwide by June 2012, and it was included in the God of War Saga that was released on August 28, 2012, also for the PlayStation 3." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 5: Reception "A critical and commercial success, PSM3 magazine claimed that God of War III is "simply one of the best games of all time."[6] IGN asserted that it defines the word "scale" with reference to video games.[7] The game has been highly praised for its graphics, particularly Kratos, with IGN claiming the character "is perhaps the single most impressive-looking character ever in video games."[7] It received several awards, including "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" and "Best PS3 Game" at the 2009 and 2010 Spike Video Game Awards, respectively. It was also honored with the "Artistic Achievement" award at the 2011 British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Video Game Awards." (summarised well in the lead)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. JDC808, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn  23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do regarding Development and Release in the lead, --JDC808 01:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes

  • I know images were reviewed in the last FAC but I'd like to see someone sign off on them here (unless I missed it above).
See Red Phoenix's comment above (first one below WikiCup nomination note). --JDC808 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I scanned the lead and found some issues I believed needed resolution, and would like to see a very good copyeditor (e.g. Eric Corbett, who raised issues in the last FAC, or John) walk through the entire article before we consider promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may comment on your changes, I had it as "First released", because without the "First", IMO it makes it sound like it was released everywhere on March 16, 2010. I don't necessarily agree with your statement of the second change, but your change wasn't bad, though the wording was a bit awkward IMO. I would prefer to not involve those two editors because I have not had good experiences with either of them. --JDC808 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The prose is not FA standard and needs more attention. There is excessive use of "also" and awkward phrases such as "while the player can still control Kratos while the camera is panning. A first-person camera view was also utilized for the final portion of the Poseidon and Zeus boss fights". Utilized is pompous – used is much better, and we have have "while...while". These are just examples, the prose needs attention throughout. I am not suggesting an extensive rewrite, just an hour or so of work from a good copyeditor. Graham Colm (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've posted at the Guild of Copyeditors project page to see if anyone would be available. --JDC808 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I was looking through the article myself and I disagree with the "excessive use of 'also'" claim. Took care of the other two points noted. Going to read through more. --JDC808 16:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.

  • Lede: Doesn't the stuff in the first sentence need sourcing somewhere within the article? I know it seems basic, but I think it makes sense
  • I think the chronological part can be removed from the lede unless it's imperative in some way I don't understand
  • "Reigniting..." Did the Zeus betrayal reignite or his mountain ascension "reignite" the war?
  • Lede plot paragraphs can be further summarized (remove as much jargon as possible)
  • Relevance of the weapons in 2nd ¶ in the lede isn't clear—consider removing
  • The player can use up to four magical attacks and a power-enhancing ability as alternative combat options. Is this vital enough to include in the lede?

czar  16:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Multiple sources confirm that information.
  • I've seen multiple people confused on the chronological order on other websites. I removed the "and the sequel to..." part though.
  • Basically the first part. Because Zeus betrayed Kratos, Kratos is now leading an all out assault on Olympus, which reignited the Great War.
  • Summarized more of the plot in the lead.
  • In regards to the second paragraph itself, this is a format I've established (with help) across the God of War articles, which all (except this and Ascension) are now FAs. The mention of secondary weapons is so a reader can see that there is more than just one weapon that can be used.
  • It gives an overview of the game's gameplay, and lets readers know that you can do more than just attack with some blades. --JDC808 15:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. After looking at this for the last day, here are my other overarching thoughts as a copyeditor active in WPVG: Though I didn't see the article listed on the GOCE requests page, I would be happy to copyedit—however, I think there is work to be done before a copyeditor even looks at it. The harder work of paring down the text needs to be done first. I fear that this article is too long (I'd estimate twice as long as it needs to be: 39kB → at least 30 if not 20). The text needs to be much more concise—this means throwing away information at this point: why are voice actors listed twice? why does the lengthy plot and gameplay go into such detail? why is the marketing important, and if it is, why is it in "on x, y happened" format? Every time I sit down to read the article, I am caught up in jargon and quickly lose interest (note: even though I'm interested in the game, as an outsider to the series). This isn't necessarily cause to "oppose" but it keeps me from engaging further with the text, which is an FAC#1a problem. I'd try reading this text out loud to a friend. If you notice them zoning out, perhaps there is too much minutiae in that section. If that minutiae is important, perhaps there's a more interesting way of phrasing it.
  • My other (more optional) suggestion would be to compare the gameplay/synopsis sections here with the recent FAC Dishonored's. Its sections are much more concise mainly because they're limited to what the RS say about it—and the RS aren't going to mention the minutiae that isn't worth mentioning. If you solely relied on those external sources, you'd have a good skeleton for how much plot and gameplay is vital—I imagine it's less than half of the current text. (An aside: while plot sections don't need to be sourced, the current end-paragraph instruction manual footnotes in the plot section make it appear as if the plot is fully cited in those pages, and it isn't. This should be addressed.) The article, right now, is written for an audience already familiar and interested in the series, and it needs to accommodate and engage other, more uninterested audiences. My suggestion is to do this by cutting text extraneous to the essence of the game liberally. The task at hand is reading every phrase of every sentence for the question, "Is this necessary?"

czar  15:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Been looking through and trimming/cutting some stuff. How is it looking?
  • I'm a bit confused about where the footnote in the Plot section is, because there's not a footnote in the plot section. The only end-paragraph instruction manual footnotes are in the Gameplay section. --JDC808 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I meant the plot/setting/gameplay/intro sections. czar  01:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused. The Plot and Setting sections (which are subsections under Synopsis) do not use footnotes to cite the instruction manual. --JDC808 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
As in "(a first for the series)" uses an instruction manual for its footnote. Unless the footnote says this, it should either not be added or another source should be used to cite it. Some good trimming there so far. I still think a whole lot more can go czar  04:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's contradicting. You said it isn't necessarily a cause to oppose, but you opposed? --JDC808 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I said the jargon wasn't reason enough to oppose. I get no pleasure from opposing, and you probably have enough supports to go as is, but as a copyeditor, I do think the article's verbosity adds to a lack of clarity, such that it needs a significant razoring even before it gets copyedited (I elaborated above). czar  14:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Other[edit]

  • Support Pre my comments at the previous nomination. → Call me Hahc21 04:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow-up -- This FAC has been open longer than even the somewhat extended periods we're used to these days, and needs to be closed one way or the other. At this stage we still have outstanding objections from Graham and Czar -- I'll give them another day or so to come back and see if they believe the issues are resolved, otherwise I'll be archiving it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Amphetamine[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the central nervous system stimulant that you probably know at least a little bit about.


Prior to the first nomination that closed two weeks ago, this article was subject to an extremely rigorous GA review to help prepare the article for this review process. This nomination is a continuation from where Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1 left off.

@Axl, The Sceptical Chymist, Anypodetos: Just notifying you three that I've renominated the article.


WP:PAYWALLED citations for the article can be downloaded here: my file locker for the amph article.

Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • The "Reference notes" section is a pretty messy, awkward way of dealing with an abundance of citations. Have you seen WP:BUNDLING? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Curly; yeah, I agree it's a bit awkward, especially considering the 4th note only has 2 citations. Refnotes 1-4 are actually just the citations for the four lead paragraphs respectively (listed once at the end of each paragraph). The first reviewer from the last nomination had a real issue with citing the lead due to "readability problems." I cite the lead of articles I write mostly out of habit and aversion to unreferences statements (~99% of the sentences in the article have at least 1 corresponding medical citation). The single remaining (5th) refnote/bundled-citation references the diverse overdose symptom list in the body of the article. I'm open to suggestions on making it neater if you have an idea/suggestion on how to do that though. :) Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Issue discussed/addressed in Shuddle's section. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Anypodetos[edit]

My concerns were already addressed in the first FA review, but I'd like to give the article another read (next weekend) before I formally support promotion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Anypodetos: Sorry about the ® edits; I was trying to be consistent in the parenthetical brand mentions while indicating Adderall refers both to the brand and the generic mixture (the lack of generic name makes it seem odd in generic and/or brand drug lists...). I read MOS:TM beforehand, so I was aware that it's generally discouraged. In any event, I think you were right in removing it since it made lists of generics with Adderall® outside of parentheses odd. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I understood your intention, and as it's a guideline and not a policy I won't be removing any ®s again should they be added. However, as some people routinely remove ®s in articles, I think we shouldn't rely on them for conveying information to the reader. Should my "trade name, e.g., Dexedrine" be included again, do you think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)
Come to think of it, I think the best way to deal with it is simply cut the parenthetical mentions of brands throughout the article since there's already an entire section covering brand and generic drug info. It's a bit redundant with that section and just results in the problem with distinguishing brand/generic drugs by keeping it. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What about the abbreviation titles in the Pharmacodynamics section? They are somewhat dense for my personal taste, but I won't remove any (to, say, one per abbreviation and paragraph) without your support, Seppi. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support promotion. I agree with TSC that any remaining issues are minor things and won't affect FA worthiness. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

K, I made a few changes, mostly to address what we talked about above and the lack of clarity on what "amphetamine" refers to (in the article and in general). Let me know how it looks (please revert a change if I did something stupid - I'm not very awake right now...). Regards, Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 22:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support from TSC[edit]

  • Support, Most of my comments were addressed during the previous nomination. A. is a difficult subject to write about, since you are writing essentially about 4 substances in one article (two stereoisomers, racemic mixture and adderall). Of course improvements are always possible, but the article is already at the level of FA for pharmacology, so improvements can continue after the nomination is approved. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from John[edit]

Oppose on prose. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate that uses "however", "moreover" and the like as padding. This is not brilliant writing. Also, what's going on with the {{abbr}} tags? --John (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@John: I don't know how to actually address your concern without additional feedback, as it's excessively vague. Transition words are used for to enhance the flow of writing in any good English text. What precisely do you believe is the problem with the current use? How would you like to see it addressed? Abbr tags are indicated for accessibility and general readability both in html and in the wiki MOS.
In any event, please elaborate with the style guide - without a guideline, there's literally no way I'll be able to fix conformity to a formatting standard. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Re the abbr tag I prefer Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence. If you're going to use html you should probably only use it the first time too or at least be consistent in how you are using it. Re "however" see WP:EDITORIAL. Re "moreover" try the sentence without it and if it still works (it will) leave it out. "Moreover" is padding and it makes the prose harder to read without adding meaning. --John (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@John:After going through it, I agree - 3 of them were a bit useless since they were written redundantly "Moreover XYZ also...". The last one I cut flowed well even without it as you suggested.
Off the top of my head, the styles I used throughout the article include: (a lot was convered in the GA review)
  1. Consistent use of the serial comma (I went through the whole article)
  2. Use of American English and DMY dates
  3. Consistent journal name formatting using a period with where abbreviated according to Pubmed-indexed journal names
  4. First and middle names of authors initialized and written as Last1 (F1)(M1), Last2 (F2)(M2), ... (no et. al.)
  5. use of comma when writing e.g., and i.e.,
  6. In abbreviations, full versions are written out in the first occurrence and abbreviated thereafter, with an {{abbr}} template used only at the first instance of each ensuing paragraph (for consistency and in order to avoid a display of something ugly like this clause was intended to appear).
    • Edit: to be completely upfront, there's 2 adjacent sentence with 2 names where I didn't follow this convention, simply because the full name is unnecessary jargon.
These terms are: SLC22A3 and SLC22A5 which are SoLute Carrier (family) 22 members 3 and 5 respectively.
In any event, I'd be happy to do edits to cut redundancy like that if you spot anymore. smile Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 09:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few. Take these edits as a model. We need to go through and trim any other padding and superfluous words. It should be possible to trim 10% and the article will be the better for it. --John (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll see what I can prune over the next few days of editing, particularly in the technical sections. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll help out. It's easier to edit someone else's work. It's a really good article and just needs a wee trim. --John (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@John: I pruned pharmacodynamics as much as I could - how's it look? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 08:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It's looking better. I now have a slightly different qualm about the article; I am worried it depicts Adderall in too positive a light. I have pinged User:SandyGeorgia who is more of an expert on the medical side of things, and maybe she can help. I accept that the references are good but it seems this article spends just a little too much time reassuring the reader how utterly safe and efficacious this drug is when used as a medicine. Second opinion needed. --John (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hehe, I suppose you've got a point that it's probably a bit too much reassurance; the main reason I wrote it that way was due to the misconceptions people have about amphetamine as a result of the mountain of negative outcomes related to methamphetamine use (the lead of that article contains a summary of it). I didn't intend to emphasize the safety of a particular medication though, so I'm perfectly fine with scaling back the language. Which parts concerned you? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I cut the only medical claim involving Adderall that I saw on the page; was there something else that concerned you? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 11:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey John, I noticed you reintroduced the ADHD abbreviation in the first sentence of the body a while back when it was defined in the first sentence of the lead. I don't have any issue with redefining it in the body, but is it conventional to do that, or was that unintentional? Regards, Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I just introduced the last 2 paragraphs in Amphetamine#Dependence, addiction, and withdrawal - I'd really appreciate your expertise in copyediting that. I tried to keep it short and concise. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look later on today. --John (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The bit you have added looks ok. I dislike the indistinct photo of the colourless liquid. Could I interest you in File:Adderall bottle and capsules.jpg instead? --John (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to shy away from using images of pharmaceuticals because they're really just amphetamine salts combined with a lot of fillers or in a resin, possibly also in a gelatin capsule. Before writing the article, I didn't know the amphetamine compound (free base) was actually a liquid at room temparature, so I thought it more informative to add that. I think the pharmaceutical would be great for the associated enantiomer or product page though (dextroamph/adderall). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's a terrible picture. Here's another one: "contracted from alphamethylphenethylamine)" We don't do this per WP:MOSBOLD. I was sure I had removed this but it looks like it has been re-added. --John (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I'd forgotten that you removed it so I put it back in; I merely added it due to the convention in other drug articles with contracted names. I don't mind cutting it, so I'll remove it now. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Question "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine." Is this statement true world-wide or does it relate only to the US? --John (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that should be mentioned then. --John (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Done - diff Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I support on prose now. Here are the last few edits I made, nothing major. Well done for your good work on this article. --John (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Shudde[edit]

I have a number of problems with this article (specifically criteria 1a, 1b and 2b). I'm only going to list a few of the problems I have found.

  • I know that there are guidelines regarding the structure of pharmacology articles, but why is there not a section (preferably near the top) introducing the structure and nomenclature of the two enantiomers and the prodrug? For example Lisdexamfetamine is mentioned in the lead, yet it's structure (and the fact that it's a prodrug that metabolises to dextroamphetamine) is not mentioned until the Pharmaceutical products section. I know there is a link to the main article further up, but is mentioned twice before it's adequately introduced.
The main reason I put it last (besides being indicated in MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM)is because the salts and lisdexamfetamine (Lis-D-amph dimesylate/Vyvanse is more or less a glorified time-released salt of dextroamphetamine, since, like dextroamphetamine salts, the active moiety of lisdexamfetamine is dextroamphetamine) have pharmacodynamics that are identical to the freebase form - I suppose I should state that explicitly in the pharmaceuticals section. There are claims that lisdexamfetamine is more difficult to abuse, but the pharmacokinetic difference is completely irrelevant for recreational users since the elimination half-life for the enantiomers nearly triples during an overdose. A detailed description of the chemical properties wouldn't be very interesting IMO, so I didn't even bother elaborating on lisdexamfetamine's chemical properties (which should be in that article, per summary style). The key difference between lisdexamfetamine and dextroamphetamine is that its half life is, on average, about an hour longer due to the time required to metabolize the lysine portion. As for the enantiomers, there's really not much more to the naming convention than the content of note 2 - i.e., left/right handed versions of a mirror image.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • You haven't responded to the thrust of my comment: "why is there not a section introducing the structure and nomenclature of the two enantiomers and the prodrug"? I think you may be missing my point here. Like many others, at PR, GAC and FAC I usually read the lead last. So when I started reading this article (from Uses–Medical) there were a number of terms/names in use that hadn't been introduced -- lisdexamfetamine is just one example. Levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine are other examples. MOS:MED does not preclude implementing this suggestion. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
What exactly would you expect me to put into this section that isn't already covered in chemical and physical properties? The structural relationship between amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and levoamphetamine requires only two sentences, as it did in the lead. Lisdexamfetamine is not an example of the amphetamine molecule (I'd suggest you actually cite a chem/pharm database if you want to argue this), but ignoring this, it's relationship is simply an inactive prodrug form of D-amph coupled with L-lysine. All that is 3 sentences for this entire section; what else do you want added? I mentioned MOS:MED because it indicates that section is where it's supposed to be. The only other option to implement your suggestion is to create a completely redundant section with that one. I'm not going to introduce redundancy simply because you want to skip the lead and read that information in the body sooner. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Much of the opening paragragh of the Physical and chemical properties (although is structure a property? Don't properties derive from a structure?) could be moved to the top of the article. For example levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine are both linked in this section, but levoamphetamine had already been mentioned several times in the text, yet here it is introduced (apart from the lead, but like I said, one should not need to read the lead before reading the main text -- nor the infobox). You could also mention all the names (in note one) in this section. It would probably make sense to merge this with the Pharmaceutical products section. Therefore when you mention the various names (brand or otherwise) throughout the rest of the article, it will be clear exactly you are referring to. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Another example is how you discuss the "free base" form in several instances. This would all make more sense if the structure was discussed earlier (that amphetamine incorporates a primary amine, and therefore can exist as a free base or as a salt) and the various enantiomeric ratios, salts etc.
I tacked on "free base" to the clause on the chemical that "amphetamine" references in formal/correct use. For this compound, the salts basically just act as a delivery vehicle since the active moiety, amphetamine (the free base is a bit volatile), retains its pharmacological properties in all the salts used in pharmaceuticals (i.e. the salts don't affect pharmacology). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Again missing my point (and I don't think your statements here are necessarily correct; amphetamines are almost certainly supplied as salts for other/further reasons). My point was that "any" discussion of a free base or salt would benefit from the reader being introduced to the fact that amphetamine incorporates an amine -- see above. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"Amphetamines are almost certainly supplied as salts for other/further reasons" - Oh really? What might those be?
Anyone who looks at the first sentence or the IUPAC drugbox parameter would realize amphetamine contains an amine. This material is already covered in chem/physical properties. Citations for my former statements:
Pubchem: The efficiency of absorption of amphetamine & phentermine is unchanged from resin bound dosage forms compared with soluble salt formulations. However, the absorption rates of these compounds are slower from the resinates, giving rise to flatter & more prolonged blood levels. ...
EMCDDA: Amphetamine base is a colourless volatile oil insoluble in water. The most common salt is the sulfate (CAS-60-13-9): a white or off-white powder soluble in water. Illicit products mostly consist of powders... Amphetamine may be ingested, snorted and, less commonly, injected. Unlike the hydrochloride salt of methamphetamine, amphetamine sulfate is insufficiently volatile to be smoked.
Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You said "the salts don't affect pharmacology" -- where in the article is this stated? If this is true (and it may be) then that doesn't mean that the choice of salt is arbitrary. I was actually thinking stability/storage/shelf-life etc when I said "supplied as salts for other/further reasons" -- but there may be others (see [28][29]). But this is moving away from my point, which is that discussing salts will make a bit more sense to the reader after mentioning that amphetamine includes a primary amine. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this address your concern? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Not really, but even if it did, it's a change to the lead. Like I've said above this could be best addressed by a separate section at the top of the article -- not in the lead. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I moved the chemistry section to the top in this edit - is that what you had in mind? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I'd need a consensus on WT:PHARM to move the pharmaceutical section up top - a recent dialogue on the project page specified placing it as the last section in an article (if such a section is included) before the refs. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure you need a consensus there. Projects are welcome to have guidelines, but the MoS supersedes it, and projects can't insist that articles follow their guidelines. Moving the "Physical and chemical properties" section improves things, but there are a still a number of problems. I'll list them here to try and make clearer what my thinking is:
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  • I like the general structure used by pubchem [30] -- it's very logical and intuitive
  • All the uses, properties, biological activity of the amphetamines flows from their structure, therefore mentioning this early makes sense.
  • Physical and chemical properties are not the same as structure/formulation/composition -- I would consider them the things listed at [31] -- I'm not sure what I'd rename the section. PubChem calls it Identification -- but really we'd need something a bit more descriptive than that!
  • Surely "Pharmaceutical products" does not belong as a subsection of "History, society, and culture". These formulations/compositions are what is being discussed in "Uses", "Contraindications", "Side effects" etc etc -- so it would be better to have this section before the others?
  • That was actually what I was referring to - pharmaceuticals are supposed to be placed within a society and culture subsection (which I've appended to history due to the related main article name). The structure of MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM is currently inconsistent and the revision discussion has indicated its placement there. Three other reviewers have emphasized these MOS orderings in their review (I've given a detailed explanation of the ordering, prior to the chem section move, under Anypodetos' section in the first FAC). Due largely to their reviews, I don't have as much leeway on this as you think. This isn't suprising, since I notified/requested input from WT:MED/WT:PHARM at the beginning of the first FAC. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jmh649: Since you've more or less just unknowingly illustrated what I mentioned here, can you provide your thoughts on the section layout? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry but you're going to have to provide me with diff's. What were the arguments exactly? If they were along the lines of "you should follow the guideline, they're great in this case because ..." then that might help. But if it's "you should follow the guideline because we have a guideline" then we may have a problem. I have no issue with guidelines being followed, but if it's only for its own sake, then we're in trouble. I've outlined exactly why I think the current formatting weakens the article, and certainly don't see how my suggestions damage it. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Having an image near the top with L-amph, D-amph and lisdexamfetamine all in the same images would be great. Having one rather than two images would also make things easier for people reading the article on a mobile device.
  • I think it would be misinformative to pair lisD-amph with L-amph and D-amph. People with less familiarity with chemistry might think of the three as variants of the same chemical. As you know, that's obviously not true. The only thing that's really equal among these (technically, just D-amph and Lis-D-amph) is that they have the same complete pharmacodynamic profile (pharmacodynamics of the drug + metabolites). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's done well, with a good caption, then it won't be misinformative. All three compounds are discussed in the article, are providing comparative structures early is valuable. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Doing all this would allow the incorporation of notes 1–3 into the main text.
I hope this makes things a little clearer. I'd like to emphasis that project consensus is not needed to make these changes. If the only reason we have not to do it is that, then let's just do it! -- Shudde talk 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This would also eliminated the need for note 2 (which is unreferenced).
I initially hadn't referenced it due to it only containing a chemistry definition (it more or less just states wikt:enantiomer) and enantiomer names derived from the INN listed in note 1. Nonetheless, I added a ref to support it. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
Like I said, adding a separate section would eliminate the need for this note at all. But if you insist on retaining it, I'd recommend quoting and referencing the IUPAC Gold Book ([32]) -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, derp - my mistake. Thanks for the ref! I've added this as you've requested. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Uses[edit]
  • "Amphetamine, as Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine, is generally used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy.[16][20][29] Historically, amphetamine has also been used as a treatment for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion." -- is it necessary to say Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine here? Why "generally"? Could this be rewritten "Amphetamine is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy,[16][20][29] and has historically been used as a treatment for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion." ??
In most cases, when I've qualified a sentence with "generally" or the like, its because the unqualified statement is technically incorrect in all cases; amphetamine is banned in some countries, so in certain places its not used at all for those indications. In other countries, it's a controlled Rx with that indication (covered in legal status). I've made all other changes to this sentence that you proposed. Pruned 1 unnecessary ref as a result of the change and appended the resulting orphan sentence to the next paragraph.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Including "generally" may imply that it has other medical uses. You're suggesting that removing it would then make the statement mean that it can be used everywhere to treat ADHD; I can't see how one would interpret it this way. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It obviously does have other medical uses, as there's 3 others listed in that same sentence. Those are less common off-label uses. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • "Does" or "did"? The way it is written implies that it has been used for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion in the past, but not any longer. So it's currently not obvious at all. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Both. It was an official indication before; now they're off-label: "With clinical applications of amphetamine as a drug to combat fatigue, an appetite suppressant and a treatment of narcolepsy, adverse effects such as anorexia, weight loss and insomnia are predictable and frequent adverse events associated with the use of amphetamine-based medications in the management of ADHD" - from the first ref to that sentence. Nasal decongestion may be an exception due to drug delivery unless people insufflate it, but that's more a recreational route than anything else. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's used off-label then it'd be good to say that. Like I said, saying it's "historically been used" reads to me like it was but no longer is used for those purposes. There is no discussion in the medical uses section (other than the first sentence) on its use in depression or obesity however, so a little bit more information on this is probably warranted. I know that there is a brief section on legal status, however does the fact that amphetamine is a scheduled/controlled substance restrict its use off-label? -- Shudde talk 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll add a mention of them as off-label uses. As far as prescribing amphetamine off-label, in the United States, that's just up to the prescribing physician. An amphetamine Rx doesn't even need to list an indication for a generic pharmaceutical. A complete Rx script example for brands with generic substitutes would be "Adderall Xmg PO TID #90" or "Dexedrine Ymg PO BID #60". This is true for any schedule 2 controlled substance (some states may have indication requirements, however). An insurance company cares about indications for non-generics though (Vyvanse). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can you now strike the use of "generally" which seems redundant now? You mention no problems in the US -- but what about elsewhere? This would not need to be mentioned in this section (could be added to the "legal issues" section). -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the word "generally" as you've requested. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I can find a lot of information on the legality of its use elsewhere, but not much on the officially indicated use - for that I'd probably have to use google translate on the equivalent government body of the FDA in other countries (the EU regulates legality in many countries, but not the indication of usage in countries where its legal, so it's not easy to summarize this or find summary information on it). I'll look, but I can't promise that I'll be able to add anything. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Literature reviews of human studies, including a meta-analysis and a systematic review, of magnetic resonance imaging indicate that long-term treatment of ADHD with amphetamine may decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects with ADHD, such as an improvement in function of the right caudate nucleus." -- This just reads very poorly. There is a redundancy, and why are we being so specific regarding the "report" (meta-analysis and a systematic review)? Would "Magnetic resonance imaging studies have revealed that long-term treatment with amphetamine may decrease the abnormalities of brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD." -- Surely this is the relevant information, although "may decrease" sounds awfully speculative.
Fixed this by adding a sentence back to the paragraph that I deleted yesterday (there were numerous prose edits in the day prior to your review - this sentence was cut without revising the context of that paragraph). I think the added context may answer your questions regarding specificity. Tweaked to "may decrease" to "can decrease" - beyond statistical noise, the variability is probably in large part a result of the wide range of etiological factors that cause ADHD. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Be specific about "species" -- it's unnecessarily vague. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm specifying only the latter group since the included sources only support it for humans (a more general statement is true - I just don't feel like adding citations for the sake of specifying non-human animals). I'm not specifying the former because it's not relevant to humans or that section. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not fixed -- "systematic reviews of magnetic resonance imaging indicate" makes no sense. You can't do a review of "magnetic resonance imaging" -- you can review studies performed with an MRI machine, but the way you've written it makes it read like the technique itself has been reviewed. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Uhm...I'm not retarded - I didn't need the explanation; that was just a typo from the recent edits I linked. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The error existed when I initially commented on the statement, and remained after you tried to address it, so don't get offended that I explicitly pointed the mistake out. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "treatment of ADHD with amphetamine can decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects with ADHD" -- again with the redundant use of ADHD twice. Look at it like this, does the statement "treatment of ADHD with amphetamine can decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects without ADHD" make sense? -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I unintentionally passed over this point last time. My subsequent revisions/fixes to my last edits in this section are included in this diff: [33] Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "In humans, reviews of clinical stimulant research have established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for ADHD." -- "In humans"? Is it necessary to specify? "Clinical stimulant research has established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for treatment of ADHD."
Addressed in the above bullet (w.r.t. species-dependent variation in safety). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • "In Millichap's review of recent studies, he emphasized the findings of a randomized controlled trial of amphetamine treatment for ADHD in Swedish children which found marked improvements in attention, disruptive behaviors, and hyperactivity and an average change of +4.5 in IQ following amphetamine use for 9 months." -- this seems to come out of nowhere. Recent (see WP:RELTIME) He emphasised the findings? Relative to what?
Tweaked the sentence intro for better flow. As noted above, I re-added context w.r.t. species-dependent variation in safety; efficacy is relative to controls. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • This whole section still has problems. "the author emphasized" -- relative to what? Over what else? "Consequently, the author asserted that other long-term amphetamine trials in ADHD with less comorbidity could result in even greater functional improvements.[35]" -- this seems speculative, why have we included it here? The language also needs work -- the study would "find" not "result". -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Diff- how's that look? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem still exists. "Noted" rather than "emphasised" doesn't address it. Is there someone that can help with a copy-edit here? -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit: is your concern in relation to a baseline/control group, or am I misunderstanding this issue? I can elaborate on this if so - just not 100% sure what you're looking for atm. Maintained) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It just doesn't read very well. In addition to my comments above, we're mentioning the authors name, but I'm not sure why? Why is he "emphasising" or "noting"? It's not really made clear why any of this is important, but the language implies that it's because Millichap has said so. In that case it comes across as opinion (like how opposing views on something can be summarised by taking representative quotes from authoritative figures -- but this doesn't work in this case, because what we're discussing is less subjective or speculative.). Hope this helps. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh. He said it was notable following a statement that long term studies were infrequent. Presumably, this study is long wrt previous studies. Shall I add a statement about its length and just cut the language on the author making an assertion?Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine that act on these systems are used to treat ADHD." -- This seems to be implying that the reason these psycho-stimulants are used to treat ADHD is because of "problems with the operation" (I don't like this phrase -- could it be more specific?) with neurotransmitter systems (that pipped link may not be appropriate btw). But surely this isn't the reason they're used, but rather a possible mode of action (the reason is because they show efficacy I assume).
I don't mind rephrasing it if you have a suggestion for replacement, but the message I intended to communicate with that section is more or less "these drugs act on the system that produces the (hypo-)functional impairments in adhd" - the clinical efficacy is more or less a demonstration of that explanation in practice. As for the wikilink, there's no independent article on neurotransmission; the neurotransmitter article includes information on the various systems in Neurotransmitter#Actions. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • This does need to be rephrased. Why not just say what you said to me, that amphetamine acts on these systems, and this may explain why it is effective in treating ADHD? How it's written right now is the other way around (that amphetamine is used because it acts on this system). See WP:PIPE -- but why would you use [[neurotransmitter|neurotransmitter systems]] rather than "neurotransmitter systems"? -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've cut the pipe and edited the redirect to that article and section. I also rephrased this in the third group of edits; has this addressed your concern? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At the moment it says "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine are used to treat ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems" -- but obviously they may be effective because they increase the neurotransmitter activity. So "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine may be effective in treating ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems" ?? Still not sure this fixes it, but it's an improvement I think. -- Shudde talk 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll make this change, but I'm not sure what you see as being wrong with it (before or after this second change). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Adderall has a significantly lower discontinuation rate than other amphetamine mixtures" -- is this because it has fewer adverse effects? Also you can probably get away with only having [38] at the end of this paragraph, rather than after all of the last three sentences.
The Cochrane review was annoyingly vague on that topic - I couldn't find an explanation; they merely reported that. W.r.t. citations, with exception to the lead (which cites by paragraph due to another FA reviewer's complaints complaints in archive 1), the convention I've used in the body is to cite claims by sentence.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • I find the excessive inline citations to be quite distracting. It definitely makes the article harder to read. You may want to reconsider the convention you've adopted. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've received the opposite feedback from others on the lead (i.e. distribute citations back to each sentence), but what do you suggest? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you bundle some of these references (for example 40,41,42) ? See WP:CITEBUNDLE.
The cutoff I've used for including a group of citations from the body of the article in the refnotes section is 5 or more consecutive citations to a single sentence. I could reduce that to 4 if you'd prefer - grouping 3 wouldn't produce much of a difference because the superscript replacement is roughly the same length. I.e.:
[40][41][42]
[ref-note #] Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
*Go for four. Keep them as short as possible. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Done Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a number of single sentence paragraphs -- can these be reorganised?
I've merged all single sentences into relevant paragraphs except for the individual sentence in physical side effects, which I intentionally kept in order to emphasize that statement. That was the only single paragraph sentence that I authored.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
Pharmacology[edit]
  • Can I get your feedback on the image in pharmacodynamics? I'm not sure if its more useful to replace certain text with an annotated wikilink overlay or add more descriptive text to the image. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • When I give this section a proper read through I'll give you a more definitive answer, but at the moment my feeling is not to add further to it. It's probably a busy enough image as is, and adding annotated wikilinks may reduce clarity. At the moment I don't think it's worth your time, but I'll give it some more thought. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I decided to submit it for FP and ended up getting a lot of useful feedback on it (both on my userpage and at the FP nomination page). I'm going to follow up on the feedback I've received and improve it to FP-quality. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is currently a valued image (Edit:now a quality image too - 06:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)). Probably going to renominate it for FP since I received useful feedback from it. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to skip down a bit.

  • "Amphetamine is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine. Oral availability varies with gastrointestinal pH. Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9–10; consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium. Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in its water soluble cationic form, and less is absorbed." -- I wonder if this could be reorganised to be a little clearer and better organised. This would also benefit from a structure / nomenclature section earlier on (you're effectively discussing effects arising from the amine). It's also a little confusing, saying there is a certain absorbance. Maybe "The oral bioavailability of amphetamine varies with gastrointestinal pH. Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9–10; consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium. Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is exists predominantly as a water soluble salt, and less is absorbed. Amphetamine is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine." -- this is minor (hopefully I've not stuffed the pharmacokinetics up) but I think improves it.
I've made this revision, but tweaked it slightly for flow. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • "Approximately 15–40% of amphetamine circulating in the bloodstream is bound to plasma proteins." -- again with the single sentence paragraphs. It's also strange how this is not really elaborated on or explained, but the pH dependent conversion between a free base to a salt is.
The pH-related conversion information and protein binding (as prose) was added by another FA reviewer - I didn't want to alter it for obvious reasons. wink I think he just wanted to add the drugbox information to the pharmacokinetics prose for completeness. Protein binding isn't an interesting pharmacokinetic property for amphetamine IMO. Bioavailability and excretion are more general pharmacokinetic parameters and pH induces high variability in those parameters for this drug though. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • "When the urinary pH is basic, more of the drug is in its poorly water soluble free base form, and less is excreted" -- is this necessary given the discussion in the first paragraph of this section?
The first paragraph discussed the effect of pH on absorption. That clause is discussing the effect of pH on excretion. It's more or less just saying the impaired absorption/excretion related to alkaline pH arises from the same chemical phenomenon, even though the processes/involved organs are different. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • The effect of pH on lipophilicity (or water solubility) is already discussed though, and this seems to be repeated here. -- Shudde talk 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Did this address the issue? [34] Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on this one. Definitely an improvement though. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Metabolism occurs mostly in the liver by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) detoxification system of enzymes. CYP2D6 and flavin-containing monooxygenase are the only enzymes currently known to metabolize amphetamine in humans." -- might be worth explaining that CYP2D6 is a member of the cytochrome P450 system, otherwise this may seems like a contradiction to readers.
I'm actually just going to cut that first sentence since it was based upon the December 2013 adderall XR FDA label and written prior to the FMO addition a few months back. The FDA label is completely missing information on FMO. Moreover, in the average person, FMO3 and CYP2D6 have roughly comparable activity. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • As you can't easily explain what the various metabolic pathways are, why not add labels to the arrows for File:Amph Pathway.png (for example amphetamine to 4-hydroxyamphetamine is para-hydroxylation). This would be a great thing to do.
Done. I'll annotate that sometime over the next day or so w/ {{annotated image 4}}. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
How's the format on this look at the moment? User:Seppi333/sandbox2 Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Much better, a minor gripe would be to use lower-case letters rather than starting with capitals, but that is really up to you. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd sort of prefer to use caps because of the page name wikilinks, but I did make it consistent since you made this comment (e.g., I changed para-hydroxylation to Para-Hydroxylation for consistency with wikilink caps). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • After re-reading this section, there is no discussion on the difference in PK between Lisdexamfetamine and Adderall. A quick literature search reveals there are reviews out there on this -- it's a prodrug, so one would hope it'd have superior PK. My quick read suggests it has less PK variability. I don't think more than a couple of sentences would be needed, but if PK is discussed, seems odd to omit a mention of this. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added some PK info on it. Let me know what you think. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this really does it justice. The point of the prodrug was to improve PK right? I'll see if I can unearth the review I found earlier -- this actually compares the PK of lisdexamfetamine with the amphetamines. This is something that should be covered a little more comprehensively. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to add more if you can lead me to something more comprehensive - what I added is more or less a summary of the only relevant distinction of which I'm aware (from info in the med guide/pharm databases/current reviews on the page). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The review I read was [35] which is a good one. Another is [36]. Both are reviews, so good secondary sources. Worth your time to look at. Also regarding Lisdexamfetamine, I know that sources say "it is converted by red blood cells to dextroamphetamine" -- but it's going to be enzymatically cleaved. Would it be better to say "red blood cell-associated enzymes" instead? ("The current findings suggest that LDX is primarily absorbed intact in the small intestines into the portal circulation and that enzymatic hydrolysis of LDX occurs primarily in the blood." [37]). -- Shudde talk 01:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I went over them earlier but never made this change. I've added your version.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Synthesis[edit]
  • I am going through the synthesis section as carefully as I can. First up, it's good to see the section expanded.
  • The mechanism and intermediate in Method 2 looks incorrect. According to the reference (a primary ref btw), the intermediate is N-(Benzylmethylcarbinyl)-acetamide, which is prepared from acetonitrile (not cyanide), and then hydrolysed with HCl.
  • The third route cites a patent -- we should avoid citing the primary literature without also citing a secondary source. Is this route discussed in a review anywhere?
  • "A number of chiral resolutions have been developed to produce either enantiomer of amphetamine" -- doesn't a chiral resolution separate enantiomers rather than "produce" them?
  • In the last scheme I think there is an error -- shouldn't it be an imine rather than secondary amine? -- Shudde talk 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Method 2: Interesting. This is a case where the secondary literature had it wrong (Allen & Ely, rxn/ref 102) and the primary literature (Ritter & Kalish) is correct. I have corrected the graphic and corresponding text. I have also added another secondary source (Krimen & Cota) that cites the primary source (Ritter & Kalish). Unfortunately Krimen & Cota use isobutylene instead of allylbenzene as the example. However the reaction conditions are the same (sulfuric acid + acetonitrile) and the proposed mechanism is also the same. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The patent for the third route is reviewed by Gray DL (2007) which is cited in the very next sentence.
  • produce → separate change made.
  • The scheme is correct. Please note that there are two steps included in the first reaction arrow: (1) condensation to produce the imine intermediate followed by (2) Raney nickel reduction of the imine to the amine. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing method 2.
  • Not having the secondary and primary source in the same spot is a little confusing, but I can live with it.
  • Yes separate is much better.
  • Ah yes, sorry my mistake. A couple of questions/points though. Reorientating the bottom three structures in the "Stereoselective synthesis of amphetamine" scheme would make the scheme a little clearer. Either that or reorientate the top two structures (which may be easier) so that all the structures in the scheme are orientated in the same way. Saves the reader having to reorganise them in their heads. Esp. as the stereochem matters here. -- Shudde talk 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Per your suggestion, I have reorientated the bottom three structures in the "Stereoselective synthesis of amphetamine" scheme so that all the structures are now oriented the same way. I agree that this makes the diagram much clearer. Boghog (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
More[edit]
  • Reference 128 doesn't seem to be working properly. -- Shudde talk 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It is now reference 129 (Allen A, Ely R 2011). I just checked the link and it works for me. Please note that the PDF is of the entire issue and you need to scroll down to page 15 to get to the amphetamine review article. Or was there some other problem with this reference? Boghog (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I now see that the hyperlink from the in-line citation #128 to the full citation in the references section wasn't working. After removing a stray whitespace in the reference name, the hyperlink now works. Boghog (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Enhancing performance[edit]
  • Ref 16 says "This suggests that cortical networks that normally process spatial working memory become more efficient in response to the drug" -- so I would drop "by increasing cortical network efficiency" -- it reads poorly as is, and the information is in the ref if people really want it.
  • Reworded this to be more direct, but I kept the clause. I think it's interesting to know how it does this. I think providing a reason also makes it less likely for people to think this statement is bullshit. Let me know what you think.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • You have a RS with an extensive quote from it, we shouldn't be relying on a jargony statement to persuade readers that the statement is correct. My other problem is that the ref says "This suggests that cortical networks that normally process spatial working memory become more efficient in response to the drug" -- so it suggests, but we're saying "Therapeutic doses of amphetamine improve cortical network efficiency". Would be better just to reduce the jargon here, the ref is good and has a large quote to satisfy any readers without access to the source. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just added a ref with a more concrete statement on rCBF + efficiency from another ref instead. Jargon words were removed in a previous edit. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "These stimulants increase arousal and, within the nucleus accumbens, improve task saliency" -- maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it reads like [stimulants] improve task saliency within the nucleus accumbens" which doesn't make much sense to me.
  • I just cut the clause on the NAcc, since I don't think it's very useful to mention the particular brain structure instead of the neural pathway (which includes that structure) which regulates it. The affected pathways are mentioned later in the article.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • You have to be very careful of close paraphrasing here. The section is quite jargony, but also reads very very similar to the cited ref -- which is a bit scary. Maybe consider rewording, reducing the jargon where you can. This will solve both problems at once.
  • Let me know if you still feel this is a problem after looking at the section edits: Diff
  • I'll address the close paraphrasing concerns below. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stimulants improve performance on difficult and boring tasks.[16] Consequently, amphetamine is used by some college and high-school students as a study and test-taking aid." -- maybe "Stimulants such as amphetamine can improve performance on difficult and boring tasks,[16] and are used by some students as a study and test-taking aid."
  • done
  • Try "Based upon studies of self-reported illicit stimulant use, performance-enhancing use, rather than abuse as a recreational drug, is the primary reason that students use stimulants." -- removes a redundancy
  • done
  • Ref 16 even says "Therapeutic (relatively low) " rather than just "Therapeutic" as an aid to readers. We should consider doing the same.
  • I'm actually surprised you're suggesting that given your previous concerns about the use of relative language. I actually don't know what the relational benchmark is for comparing low vs high in the textbook. I've discussed an alternative that I've used instead in the subsequent bullet's response. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • "At doses much higher than those medically prescribed," why not just say "At high doses," -- but again a big problem with close paraphrasing here.
  • I'm just going to use "At supratherapeutic doses" - this was cut during he GA nom, but I really think it's the only word (other than wikt:suprapharmacological) that accurately describes what this statement is supposed to say without being verbose. I also think most people can infer what supratherapeutic means in comparison to suprapharmacological, as the maximum therapeutic dose is intuitively the benchmark for "supra" (benchmark also addressed the above bullet). Hope this works for you. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • It's even more jargony. "Relatively low" is probably not close-paraphrasing, but could we not consider a well known synonym of low instead? Really what most lay readers are going to want to know is that therapeutic dose is low compared to an "abusive" dose. If you're really worried about accuracy, my recommendation would be add a note, rather than add further jargon to the article.-- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I decided to just omit the relational language here and just maintain that it holds therapeutic doses, since that's obviously true. I removed the jargon I added and wikilinked a technical term - (see the diff in the response at the bottom of this section)
  • "Amphetamine is also used by some athletes for its psychological and performance-enhancing effects.[15][29][55] In competitive sports, this form of use is prohibited by anti-doping regulations." -- how about "Amphetamine is used by some athletes for its performance-enhancing effects -- such as X Y Z --[15][29][55] but this is prohibited by anti-doping regulations."
  • I feel the inclusion of any performance enhancing effect is likely to be extremely contentious, so I actually cited them by word in the sentence which lists them. That's why I didn't do that anywhere else in the article. =/ Because of this, I don't think it's wise to make this edit unless the statement comes after the effects are listed/cited.Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what the problem is here? -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Something on the World Anti-Doping Agency's official policy on amphetamine use should be included here -- all IOC sports follow their code, and it's probably the world's most high profile anti-doping body.
  • I'll add/wikilink ",like the World Anti-Doping Agency," if you prefer but there's other relevant/important agencies that regulate competitive sports (e.g., NCAA) at the collegiate level. This is the main reason I didn't mention organizations - I don't know enough about them to make a comprehensive/informed list that includes them besides the obvious two (for the United States), WADA/NCAA. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • There are others, but World Anti-Doping Agency is the most important and influencial. I'm not saying it should be written to imply they're the only body that regulates performance enhancing drugs, but all Olympic sports (everywhere) follow the WADA code. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " Like< methylphenidate and bupropion" -- maybe introduce these, such as "Like psychostimulants methylphenidate and bupropion" -- or something more appropriate, just to save the reader needing to click the links.
  • done
  • "Similar to cognition enhancement" -- I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. -- Shudde talk 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made this sentence: "Similar to the effects of amphetamine dosage on cognitive enhancement, very high doses can induce side effects that impair athletic performance, such as rhabdomyolysis and hyperthermia." (underlined part is changed) Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Problem is still there, but I think I understand what is trying to be said here. I think you should cut the first part of the sentence: "Very high doses may actually impair performance, such as causing rhabdomyolysis or hyperthermia." -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Just some background on this section; the close paraphrasing and inclusion of lengthy quotes was due to this section starting an edit war when I was a new editor. I've since become knowledgeable of the relevant policies for medical articles, but I felt it necessary to follow the sources closely due to legitimate concerns raised in the original conversation (it's in an Adderall talkpage archive and it's very long) and opposition by editors who are misinformed or have an an anti-drug bias.
I'm not trying to point fingers or make accusations, but regardless of why there may be close paraphrasing, any possibility needs to be eliminated. We've seen the nightmare scenario twice before, and so have to be extra careful. I haven't looked explicitly for any copyvio/close-paraphrasing so far, but just noticed some potential problems in that section. If you have any reason to think their may be more sentences or statements that need a close look, I'd highly recommend checking them before anyone conducts a source review. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I'll take care of the language sometime over the next day or so. This is the only section with text that closely follows a source, so it's not an issue elsewhere. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think this edit resolved this close-paraphrasing issue, since that's how I'd convey the information regardless of the original text wording. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Contraindications[edit]
  • "For simplicity, this section will refer to the USFDA, since multiple versions of the amphetamine prescribing information exist." -- I think I know what this is supposed to mean, but it could be clarified. Does it mean that even though the language of the prescribing information is that of the manufacturer, the USFDA approves it, and therefore any prescribing recommendations will be attributed to the USFDA? It's really not that clear, and you should consider playing with the language.
  • It's the intellectual property (via copyright) of the manufacturer. Different national drug regulatory agencies typically have their own presentation format (analogous to the WP:MOS) and may suggest/require minor content changes. If everything checks out, it's subsequently approved (that's generally how it works for the countries I know of at least). I think it's kind of sketchy to say "(arbitrary/substitutable generic manufacturer name here) says" as opposed to "(prominent regulatory agency) says" when discussing this. WP:MED's (technically, Wikipedia's) requirement/guidance that WP not give medical advice is the main reason that it's written that way; e.g., I can't say "amphetamine and xyz shouldn't be taken together." In any event, I'll see if I can think of a better way to write this more clearly (this may be a moot issue depending on your thoughts/suggestions to following bullet's response though). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • You need to fix the language of the note -- it's not clear, and needs to be. -- Shudde talk 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This whole section only discusses the US -- information should be added on other major markets. I would expect the US to be the largest market, but not the only market..
  • I suppose I should change the language a little. Technically, contraindications are just avoidance relationships between drugs, so it's not something that varies between country. More to my initial point though, the contraindications came from the manufacturer's Rx info (the brand/generic package insert), which has virtually the same content regardless of where its dispensed. The presentation might vary between countries though. Drugbank's Pubchem's amphetamine page (linked in the drugbox on amphetamine) and the Australian D-amph package insert for "Dexamphetamine Sulfate" (a generic - it's a ref on the dextroamphetamine page) have the same groups of contraindications as the US Adderall package insert.
  • That said, do you have any advice/preference on how I reword this to clarify that? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
    • You've got all this from the prescribing information provided by the FDA. Have you looked into other sources on contraindications? Or are you assuming they are going to be identical? -- Shudde talk 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of growing children and adolescents during treatment" -- maybe "the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of children and adolescents prescribed amphetamines" -- the growing is redundant, and treatment reads funny. -- Shudde talk 09:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Dialogue[edit]

For all these reasons I have to oppose at the moment. I'm going to leave it there. I think there are a number of problems, I've only given a sample, and have not read everything in detail just yet. I worry about the prose -- mine is not that great, and I'm seeing problems -- so I am concerned that there are even more issues in there. – Shudde talk 10:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)