Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Freedom from Want (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the four paintings in a famous painting series by Norman Rockwell. It has sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic content to merit consideration here. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified WP:HUMAN RIGHTS, WP:VISUALARTS, WP:HOLIDAY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have notified the GA2 reviewer Wehwalt.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a California-bred racehorse who won this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes, and his owners, all from humble roots and with interesting personalities. The horse is very popular, since the article's creation in March, it has had over 500,000 hits. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Go Phightins!

I'll get the ball rolling here for all those watching with popcorn as per Montanabw's suggestions Face-smile.svg.

Lead
  • "California Chrome was the first foal of his dam, Love the Chase, who was injured giving birth to him, requiring the mare and foal to stay in a stall for a month while she underwent medical treatment." - sounds kind of "run-on/splicey" to me. Could this possibly be split into two sentences, or reworded such that dam becomes the appositive rather than Love the Chase? Not a huge deal; just struck me as awkward when reading.
  • Reworded. Better? --MTBW
  • "California Chrome was sent to the Shermans' training stable as a two-year-old, selected for its reputation for patiently developing young horses." - the second part here is bothering me ... selected for its reputation comes immediately after the part about the horse being two years old, not after Shermans' training stable, about which it is talking. How about " ... was sent to the Shermans' training stable, which was selected for its reputation for patiently developing young horses, when he was two years old" or similar?
  • Done --MTBW
  • "As early as the Santa Anita Derby, dedicated fan base, who came to be known as "Chromies", actively supported California Chrome, who was called "the people's horse"." That's a crap-load of commas and whatnot. Can it be simplified? "As early as the Santa Anita Derby, a dedicated fan base known as "Chromies" actively supported California Chrome, who was called "the people's horse." or similar?
  • I like your suggestion and killed a comma, but a minor nuance is that they weren't called "Chromies" at the SA Derby yet, the nickname appeared closer to the Kentucky Derby, hence the "came to be known" bit - I'm open to further comments to fix this, though. --MTBW
  • "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby, having won his previous four races by a combined total of 24 1⁄4 lengths, he was the morning line favorite." Start the new paragraph by using his name rather than a pronoun.
  • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "But taking the lead in the homestretch, he was ahead by five lengths until Espinoza eased him up for the final 70 yards (64 m) to not over-exert him, and he won by 1 3⁄4 lengths." This sentence is confusing to me ... so Chrome took the lead during the homestretch and was ahead by five lengths, and then he slowed into the finish so he would not be exerted? If so, then how about something like - "After taking the lead during the homestretch, he was ahead by five lengths until Espinoza eased him up for the final 70 yards to avoid over-exerting him; ultimately, he won by 134 lengths" or similar?
  • Yup, exactly. The jockey slowed him down on purpose (and was so sure he won that he stood up in his stirrups and saluted with the whip BEFORE crossing the finish line!) I took most of your suggested wording and tweaked a couple other things. Better? --MTBW
  • "...and fifth in the world in the World's Best Racehorse Rankings in their June 12, 2014, listing" I am sorry; that's too many "ins" for one sentence ... can we remove one or two?
  • Killed some "ins" and reworded slightly. Better? --MTBW
  • I am to the end of the lead, and will pick up this review in the near future, but wanted to get the ball rolling for you. Go Phightins! 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think I addresssed your questions - at least parttly - and I appreciate any more comments, follow up, and further review.. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1997 award winning science fiction blockbuster film. I overhauled this article in 2013, initiating a successful nomination for good article status. Having significantly expanded the article again since then, I now believe it meets featured article requirements. This is my first FAC nomination, so I apologise if I have overlooked any issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Corbett 20:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Are you certain that Le Cinquième Élément is the correct French title? I was taught that capital letters in French don't take accents, and the title seems to be given as Le Cinquième élément elsewhere.
    • You're right! Changed.
  • The lead has "special forces Major", whereas the Plot section has "major in the special forces". Is it to be major or Major?
    • Changed to 'major'.
  • "... destroys an attacking Earth battleship". What is the battleship attacking? Is it a naval battleship?
    • Clarified that it is a spaceship, and that it was attacking the 'Great Evil'.
  • "The current Mondoshawan contact, priest Vito Cornelius, informs President Lindberg of the history of the Great Evil ...". Who is President Lindberg?
    • Clarified that it is the president of earth.
  • "The Diva is killed ...". Why the Diva? In the previous paragraph she was introduced as "Diva Plavalaguna", implying that Diva was her first name.
    • I've changed all references to the character to her last name, which already appeared once anyway, so now it is consistent.

Eric Corbett 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick image check - Poster image is fine, the file File:Valerian_FifthElement2.jpg is a good use within the article but I would suggest making sure the caption makes reference back to the French work it was inspired by, reflecting some of that in the image rational (perhaps including the ref for that in the ratioanle page). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. :)
      • Thank you both for your comments, and thanks for your copyedits Eric. I have now addressed each issue that was brought up. Freikorp (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuckelavee[edit]

Nominator(s): Eric Corbett (talk), Sagaciousphil (talk)

This next article in our Scottish mythology series tells of the centaur-like nuckelavee of Orkney, the most horrible of all Scottish demons with its immense head, lack of skin, and breath that could destroy crops. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned, but are there no artistic depictions of the creature? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the image review. Unfortunately I couldn't find any freely licensed images - I thought I had when I discovered this but I was a little dubious so I asked Crisco for his thoughts and he also had reservations about it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Si Ronda[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a film which is not only lost, but for which very little sourcing is available (and yes, I have a sourced statement that little reference material is available). Si Ronda is a silat film in a similar vein to the film Si Tjonat, although sadly not based on a novel and thus the exact plot isn't certain. Produced by Tan's Film, it was one in a fairly long line of films in the genre, although I've never seen any sources which discuss how well it was received. I think this is as comprehensive an article as anyone can expect for this film, even with its startling brevity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support from Taylor Trescott

Oooooh... aiming for the shortest FA, I see. Bold move. Here's some comments because I can't resist lost film articles.

  • Wasn't there once a picture of the film in this article? I recall one
    • There used to be, but after my visit to Sinematek Indonesia in December I found that Biran had been mistaken in labeling it Si Ronda. My notes indicate that the image was included in the 15 January 1930 edition of Doenia Film (which I don't seem to have photographed) but with a different title (as stated here). As such, I removed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't there be a period after the A in A Loepias if it stands for something? I see Nancy Bikin Pembalesan uses a full stop
    • Removed in NBP, in accordance with BrE grammar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Might be helpful to say Nancy Bikin Pembalesan came out in May
  • Ref 5 says "Retrieved 22 July 2012." Doesn't seem like it, since this article was created in April 2013 :)
    • I first retrieved that reference when writing List of films of the Dutch East Indies in ... July 2012 Face-smile.svg I just reused the bibliographic information (while double checking the source, of course). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Muahahaha... always one step ahead.

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support looks comprehensive enough. Can't wait to see this article pop up in sentences like "it's not as short as Si Ronda" in FACs down the line. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • LOL. We used to quote MissingNo., but now that doesn't even appear to be in the top 10. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, one comment Only trivial issue is that initials are inconsistent, one with a full stop, one without Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jim, got that G fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support almost nothing to quibble with
Lede
  • "existing" maybe "contemporary". Just think "existing" might be a reference to the stage play surviving, unlike the film.
  • "this silent film" you use "film" three times in a short span starting here.

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Both done, thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Short and sweet I suppose, but I do have a few reservations. The easy ones first:
  • Why is silat italicised? We don't italicise judo or aikido for instance.
  • Judo, at the very least, has common currency, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare the frequency of aikido and silat in the common usage. English sources seem to italicise silat on first use like this or italicise it throughout, like this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can nothing be done to avoid the run-on blue links in "silent silat"?
  • "Bachtiar Effendi would later leave Tan's Film to head a magazine." Why the subjunctive "would ... leave" rather than the rather more straightforward "left", and "later" in the context of an image caption is pretty much meaningless, so why not say when he left?
  • "Momo continued acting until the 1940s, with Tan's until 1932 and with Standard Film in 1941." I think it's stretching it a bit to call 1941 "into the 1940s", plural.
And now for my major concern, which is the lack of any kind of plot summary or even any idea what the film is actually about. We're told that "... in 1929 the Wong brothers released Rampok Preanger, with similar themes", but what are those themes? Does the stage play on which the film was based give us no clues? Does the 1978 remake follow the same story? How did the 1978 filmmakers know what the story was if we don't?
  • None of my sources indicate whether or not the 1978 version of the story had the same plot. Considering the very different socio-political context of the 1978 version, in which it was common for Dutchmen to be the enemies (compare the 1970s adaptations of Si Pitung's story), and the 1920s, in which even the hint that a Dutchman had acted unethically was enough to cause government censure (Salah Asuhan originally had Corrie as a prostitute, but it had to be changed... I'll dig up the ref if you want it), I am hesitant to assume they have more than a passing similarity. The same goes for the lenong play; a current production would not necessarily have the same story as a 1920s production, in part because lenong itself (particularly in the 1920s, before literacy was common among the commoners) is not in the Western tradition of scripted works which are preserved in writing. As for the "themes", perhaps that was the wrong word; I've removed that clause entirely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    How can "A second movie based on the story, Si Ronda Macan Betawi, was made in 1978" be justified then, if nobody knows what the original story was? Eric Corbett 00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    Based on the story of Si Ronda as it developed over time. It didn't stop being performed in lenong after this film was completed, after all. However, as I said above, lenong is a form of oral literature. No two performances are the same, although they still follow the same general formula (at least, over a limited period of time; stories can shift quite drastically over the years). The story of Si Ronda changed over the years and the retellings.
Take the case of Njai Dasima. Originally written by G. Francis in 1896, it was immediately popular and adapted into at least two syair by two different authors as well as the stage. As time passed and Njai Dasima became part of the oral literature of Batavia/Jakarta, the pro-European stance of Francis's original was overwritten by more pro-Betawi/pro-Sundanese forms (in which the Europeans became increasingly villainous). Ultimately, the 1970 film of the story (Samiun dan Dasima) had Dasima leave her master out of disgust for his orgies and other sexual deviances. It's still based on the same story, but reimagined to the point Francis would have gone mad had he seen it.
Sadly, we don't have an article on that work yet. However, if you need a reference regarding how these stories change from retelling to retelling, the article on Si Pitung does have some. Of particular note would be "In the lenong version, Pitung is described as a humble person, a good Muslim, a hero of Betawi people, and an upholder of justice. ... In Si Pitoeng, a 1931 film and the first produced about Pitung's life, he was shown as a real bandit. However, in the 1970 film of the same name, Pitung's characteristics were closer to the traditional Indonesian depictions." I can cite this information in a footnote here if necessary (discussion how stories would change over time and in different adaptations). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
On a perhaps more direct note, I've reworked the lead to avoid implying that it is the film's story that was the basis for the 1978 adaptation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to keep harping on about this, but if it's possible to assert that "Similar stories to Si Ronda include those of Si Jampang and Si Pitung" then it must be possible to identify those similarities and thus at least an outline of the plot, even if it's just that the eponymous hero is regarded as a bandit by the authorities and that the film follows his exploits. You say in your nomination statement that the exact plot isn't known, which is fine, but what about a general plot outline, even if it's as rudimentary as I've suggested? Eric Corbett 11:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To do so would mean turning to the lenong versions (of which I am not aware of any contemporary performances recorded, either in film, audio, or text) and/or using very general parallels (i.e. "stories of bandits and silat masters popular in Betawi folklore" or something similar; a very simple version is already in the text). I've worked the second one in. As illustrated by the case of the 1931 Pitoeng film, I doubt we can even safely say the character is a "hero" in the film. As I've explained below, this is less Oedipus Rex and more Little Red Riding Hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The story was selected because of its action sequences, which had generally been inspired by American works ...". I'm not quite following this. Is it saying that action sequences had generally been inspired by American works up until then, or that the action sequences in Si Ronda were inspired by American works?
  • Action sequences in the Indies, particularly in this time period, were modeled on what they saw in American works. Google has a snippet view, but my Indonesian edition of Sen (page 25 in this book) says (retranslated from Indonesian) "during this period, well-established and popular traditional art forms were fused with American action and cinematic techniques as a recipe for success". I've reworked to make this clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... for instance, in 1929 the Wong brothers released Rampok Preanger". In what way is that an example of the increasing popularity of the silat genre?
  • I've reworked. It's meant to show that several films were being made in the genre (do you think I should add roughly what percentage of local production that was? It's a fairly significant number: 66% for 1929 [2/3], ~15% for 1930 [1/6], ~13% [1/7] for 1931, or 25% of all local films for the three year period; this would be referenced to Biran's list and simple maths as allowed by WP:CALC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the lead ought to be expanded by a sentence or two to include some of the new information you've discovered about the film's storyline.
  • I have tried to add the information without getting into too much detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    That'll do for me. Eric Corbett 13:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. The article looks considerably better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - Short but sweet! Nicely put together, and no issues I can see. A plot would have been good, but if there is no reliable source that helps us provide one, then there isn't much we can do. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for reviewing, Schro! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Further comment; Eric, Brian, While I share your desire to have more information about the plot, I think that without a reliable source that covers the subject a little more closely, if we try and outline this plot based on the original storyline, we run the risk of moving into OR or synthesis. I have in mind some modern examples, where the "based on" tag has meant little - The Italian Job really shouldn't be compared with The Italian Job (2003 film) and Fleming's Thunderball novel isn't too close to the Thunderball film, and even further away from Never Say Never Again – the films are supposed to be "based on" the same novel and are wildly different from both the source novel and each other. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And so much don't I agree that I would have opposed this article's promotion had Crisco not added the brief summary that he did earlier, which is all that I've been asking for for far too long. Eric Corbett 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
My concern was that every possible avenue was followed in looking for and utilising relevant reliable sources. Crisco has responded to this concern, has added 100 words of material, and has convinced me that he has indeed done all that is reasonably possible. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
And my concern was that it was nonsensical to claim that this film had a similar story to other films without any idea whatsoever what that story was. But I'm satisfied now, although slightly disappointed at the unseemly rush to support an article that was clearly in need of some fine tuning. Eric Corbett 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, the GA-promoted version of this article had a "Premise" section (here) which I had merged into the body before FAC because of previous objections to a 1 sentence section at Gagak Item's FAC. That being said, I agree with Eric that the current wording gives a more useful idea of what the film may have been about (and I have no issues with this wording because it's clear we're talking about Si Ronda as a lenong performance). Again, thank you for the review, and for the necessary push in that direction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • I share Eric's concern expresssed above about the lack of any plot details. If the film was based on a "popular" stage play, surely there is some record of what the play was about?
  • As I've been trying to explain (although to be honest I could have been clearer), the stories of Si Ronda / Si Jampang / Si Pitung are not fixed stories as in the Western tradition, but rather templates (named after the central character) on which stories are built. Although Si Ronda is not mentioned explicitly here, it does illustrate the issue of why determining any more than what I've included in this article is problematic. Ronda could be a hero or a villain, depending on the story, just like Tjonat went from being a villain in the novel and film to a hero in subsequent stage versions. We shouldn't be comparing these stories with, say, Romeo and Juliet or Grease, which exist within a literate society and have more or less fixed plots, but rather the various versions of Snow White or Little Red Riding Hood, which are from an oral society and have a basic template which is filled in using a variety of aspects. I think the issue is the term "stage play", which apparently has stronger connotations with being "fixed" than I realised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The term silat should be explained in the lead – otherwise, most readers will immediately have to jump out of the article via the link, to find out what the film was about.
  • This is what confuses me. Eric questioned why this is italicised and not straight (which would presume this is a common term and would preclude a gloss), whereas you're asking me to gloss it. I lean more towards the latter than the former, however, so I'll gloss. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead uses the terms "film" and "movie". The later is perhaps informal, unencyclopedic?
  • I don't think it's informal, and if so a much lesser evil than "flick". That being said, I've reworked the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Production" section, Njai Dasima should be identified as a film, again to avoid the necesssity of using the link to find this out.
  • I loathe writing the word film again in that paragraph. I've instead added "the company's" (i.e. Tan's Film, which is clearly a film company based on the name alone), which allows us to say it's a film version without actually using the word film again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A little more description required for "Momo"; presumabaly an actor, but male or female?
  • "Momo" says male to me, but the sources give nothing more than a name, and it's not a common name any more. Single names are common for Indonesians (Roekiah, Sukarno, etc.), and even more so in the 1920s, so there'd be no family name to add. Drove the Dutch mad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking through Doenia Film (15 March 1930, about Njai Dasima part 2) I've confirmed that Momo was a man. At a loss for a graceful way to include this in the running text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If we know his nationality he could be "an ...ian actor". If we don't, you've done all you can.
  • Ethnicity would be the question here, as this is 15 years too early for "Indonesian". He'd have probably been Sundanese, but no references for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The primary meaning of "titular" is "in name only", which doesn't fit here. The more general form is "title role".
  • "Similar stories to Si Ronda include those of Si Jampang and Si Pitung". This should be "Si Ronda's"; also, were the other two also martial arts experts?
  • In all adaptations that I've seen, yes (also in sources). Apostrophe s added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The final paragraph of the Production section is out of sequence, since it gives pre-production, background information.
  • There's a misplaced "however" in the third paragraph of the "Release" section – it should be at the beginning of the sentence. The same sentence adds that a number of Japanese propaganda films survived; this seems to be a separate point, and I'm not quite sure of its relevance without a little more explanation.
  • However moved, and Japanese propaganda removed (those films came about 15 years later) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On a general point, there are a couple of possible overlinking issues: "black-and-white" and "silent film", in the context of a film article, are self-explanatory.
  • Removed B&W, although I'd rather keep silent film linked as that's a nice, comprehensive article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Finally, I have experience of the problems associated with writing an article on a "disappeared" work of art or literature (see e.g. The Temple at Thatch) and can thus sympathise. In such cases it is necessary to leave no stone unturned in search of sources of relevant information. Are you certain that this has been done?
    • Have not found anything but the 1932 screening at Delpher.nl (a newspaper archive from the Netherlands which includes Dutch-language newspapers from the Indies), nothing in Doenia Film at the National Library of Indonesia (the magazine had coverage of other works, like Njai Dasima), nothing that I haven't already used in Google Books, and Biran and Said are both picked clean. Sadly I don't have Jstor access at home, but I'll ping RX to see if the two Gouda articles I found have anything new. To be honest, I'm surprised at just how little coverage there is; Njai Dasima and Si Tjonat are much better documented.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I've added a single sentence from the Jstor sources; everything else was redundant to what we already had. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for all of your comments, Brian! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just one more comment. The suffix "-esque", meaning "in the manner of", works in some cases but not others, and "Robin Hood-esque" is positively painful. I can't immediately think offhand of a suitable alternative ("Robin Hoodish or Robin Hoodian" are if anything worse). In the absence of something more elegant, it may be necessary to rephrase, eg. "a Robin Hood type of figure". I don't think the "brilliant prose" criterion can accept "Robin Hood-esque". Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems Eric has already made the change you suggested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

'Support: I think you've done all you can, now. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for all of the input. The article looks considerably better and more accessible now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Note -- Brian (I know you may not have completed your review) or Nikki, could one of you do the source review honours when you get a chance? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Said 1982: Worldcat suggests publisher name is one word
    • Typo on WorldCat's part (admittedly the space is very small in the publisher's logo, but it's there; the name is spaced in the foreword as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Done, one mistake found and corrected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Alsos Mission[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This article was extremely popular when it appeared on the front page as a DYK. I think it will prove equally popular as a TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. The Germany subsection seems a bit long, but I don't really know how you'd subdivide it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotcheck not done

  • "The cellar itself was not blown up, because this would have meant the destruction of the Church and Castle located above the cellar." - source?
    • Added by a German Wikipedian. Removed until I find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hinsley et al: British Intelligence is a title, not a series; what is current presented as the title is the volume name
  • Mahoney: don't need spaces around dash in dates, don't need both "thesis" and "dissertation", and how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I found Mahoney on the shelf at the ADFA library. It was academically reviewed and is widely cited in the literature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Red Skelton[edit]

Nominator(s): We hope (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the well-known American comic Red Skelton. Skelton's 70 year career in entertainment included vaudeville, films, radio and a weekly television show that aired for 20 years. He was also a well-known artist specializing in portraits of clowns. While he had done artwork as a hobby for many years, his professional life as an artist began with the first public showing of his work in 1964. Skelton is said to have earned more money through his artwork than from his long-lived television program.

The article has been through peer review, and I'd like to thank those who got it to this point once more- Crisco 1492 , Cassianto, Tim riley, SchroCat, and Mlpearc for their time and effort with this article. We hope (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on prose. I've nitpicked this to bits on two or three occasions already, and it looks better than ever. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I was another happy punter at PR: nicely put together, well-referenced and easy to read. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Incredibly high quality, quite well sourced throughout in a meticulous fashion, great example of comedy for our readers and editors, alike. — Cirt (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – After some light copy edits and a review at peer review, I am more than happy to support this articles promotion to FA status. Cassiantotalk 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks to all who have commented thus far for their support and kind words. We hope (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Think I've caught them all. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Terry-Thomas_and_Red_Skelton,_1967.jpg: use publication date instead of upload date in template. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is now corrected at Commons using May 5, 1967 from the CBS release for the date. We hope (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the main tributaries of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It started out as a two-sentence stub and has been steadily improving since 2012. After becoming a GA in early 2013, it failed FAC twice in mid-2013 and early 2014, mostly due to prose concerns. By the third FAC in May, this article was getting close to the standards (mainly due to work by the GOCE), but the prose still required more work. Now, I think that the prose finally meets the prose standards for FA. I am also certain that the other standards are met, as no major issues with these have been raised in recent FACs. Hopefully, it'll pass this time. --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hot on the trail of Kronan (ship) (TFA 23 June) comes the battle it sank in. This article shares content with the article on Kronan, but it has more details on the aftermath as well as the Danish and Dutch perspectives. It's a relatively minor battle and far less notable than Køge Bay later in the Scanian War. But it was significant for since it paved the way for the Danish invasion of Scania and the resulting Dano-Swedish slug match, including the battle of Lund, the bloodiest battle ever fought in Scandinavia.

It's currently a GA and recently became an A-class WP:MILHIST article. I've had some very nice help from both processes and I think it's up to par to become an FA. I'm looking forward to a thorough review.

Peter Isotalo 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and support from the Princess of Science[edit]

@Peter Isotalo: Hello there! I'm Parcly Taxel and you're hereby invited to comment on fluorine's FAC. I am part of the WikiProject on chemical elements.

For the length, media, lead, structure, citations, stability and neutrality (points 1B, 1D, 1E, 2, 3 and 4 of the FA criteria) they're all fine – this is a well-documented historical event from a long time ago, and it even comes with paintings! As well as that, the overall structure is all chronological and neat, delving into details here and there to reinforce the points made, but not too much so as to diverge from the central topic. The prose and grammar (1A) are impeccable. I couldn't "stop" reading the article, there were no bumps, I just kept going like I was hypnotised (except for the list, which is clearly allowed by the MOS anyway). Finally (1C), how many dubious sources can I count? Zero. It's short, sweet, consistent and wrapped in a package of cuteness and terseness. What do you get, Peter, for doing all this work? A pony and a support. Parcly Taxel 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support. I should add that I've had help-a-plenty with fine-tuning the prose, so kudos to everyone who has contributed.
And yay for ponies!
Peter Isotalo 09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

In general, a comprehensive and well-referenced article that meets the FAC as far as I can tell. However, there are some minor details that I would like to address:

  • As the date of the battle is according to the Julian calender, I would suggest to add the Georgian date as well (since at least one participant used it at the time)
  • Also Charles CI should be linked in the lede.
  • In the chapter Background, I am not sure whether wages is the appropriate term for soldiers' pay - if that is what is referred to.
  • Since the Sound Toll was a Danish institution, I am not convinced that the English fleet was sent to "keep it out of Danish control". The English wanted it gone, at least at the time.
  • "the war revealed" - I assume it refers to the Danish-Swedish war of 1657-8, not the Scanian War mentioned earlier.
  • The Holy Roman Empire is suddenly involved. Maybe a sentence or two might be added how that came to be. And this might include a mention of the Franco-Dutch war going on at the time.
  • In the chapter "Prelude" the Danish fleet is mentioned sailing from Gotland (Visby), which was last mentioned being ceded to Sweden by Denmark. It seems they somehow got it back.
  • The two Swedish vessels mentioned in the first paragraph were actually taken by Brandenburg/Prussian warships. They were however not involved in either battle, but it might be worth mentioning.
  • In the chapter "Forces" the numbers of guns differ from the ones given in "Battle of Møn", although the sources remain the same (eg Churprindsen had 68 at Öland and 74 at Møn). Incidentally, Zettersten was published in 1903 according to the bibliography, and in 1997 according to the reference. Which is it?

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been a tad busy with switching jobs, but I'll get cracking on updates later today. I'll address two issues right now:
  • First sentence of "Prelude" mentions the Danes capturing Gotland. Could it be made clearer?
  • The battle of Møn was a year later. Ships might have been up-gunned. Or it might be a completely different ship. Either way, that's what the sources say. I Fixed Zettersten, though.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments
  • The background section covers the Scanian war in two different parts; one directly under the background section, and later under the title Scanian war, with an interlude about the state of the navies in between. This should be rearranged to be clearer.
  • The entire background is also very much written from a Swedish perspective. It would be good to expand it to cover the Danish and Dutch situation as well. In particular, it would be worth noting how the Dutch (and English) had a long standing strategy of trying to balance Sweden and Denmark against each other (but more importantly to try to control France!), which had started much earlier and would continue through the Great Northern War.
  • The aftermath section could also mention the naval reforms that were made in Sweden after the war.

Andejons (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

It's a lovely article. I will probably support once User:Andejons's points are answered. Good work! --John (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jakec[edit]

Mostly a decent article, but a few things need fixing before I can support (most are minor).

  • In the lead, "Just as the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank with the loss of almost its entire crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz" makes it sound like the loss of the entire crew sank, not that the entire crew sank. Suggest "Just as the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank, killing almost all of its crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz"
  • Is there any information on how many combatants there were on the Dutch side?
  • Not really sure what the sentence "By early 1672 Swedish relations with France had improved and an alliance with the most powerful state in Europe was joined" means.
  • "After about an hour-and-a-half to two hours of hard fighting Svärdet's mainmast went overboard and Uggla had to strike his colors (surrender) to Tromp". Just saying surrender would be fine.
  • "Despite the astounding success, several allied officers were displeased with the conduct of their forces." Is there a source for the claim "astounding"?
  • Finally, one comment on the structure/balance of the article. It seems that there's a lot of background and I can't see how most of it ties in with the main event. The battle section has the opposite problem: comparatively little information. It's my opinion that the event section of an article on an event should generally be the largest section, while the background and aftermath sections should be smaller or at least approximately the same size.

--Jakob (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points regarding prose. There aren't really that much more to add about the battle, though. I generelly agree about the balance of content, but it will always depend on the event. There are no simply no blow-by-blow accounts of this particular battle. The info about the proceedings of the commission also ties in to the explanation of the battle.
I haven't seen any estimates of Dutch or Danish number of men, but I'll double-check my refs.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this[1] should address your other concerns.
Figures for the manpower of the allies fleet seems to be very elusive. It doesn't seem to be specified even in Barfod (1997).
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Map and sailing order could both be larger
  • File:Ortus-imperii-suecorum.png (map source): were any pre-existing images used to create this one? Where did this map get its data from?
  • File:Svenska_flottans_seglingsordning_1675.jpg: possible to translate the image description? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I pretty much always go for default size, so I don't have a sense of what's appropriate. Would you mind doing the size tweaks to what you feel is better?
  • I don't know exactly what this is based on, but it matches the sources I've added. As pointed out in the FAC of Kronan, it's a very standard map of the territorial expansion of Sweden during it's time as a Great Power.
  • Added image stranslation.[2]
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine[edit]

Dean of the Chemistry Department: Parcly Taxel 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine. Atomic number 9. The lightest halogen, most reactive element, an extreme challenge to isolate… yet it is found everywhere from toothpaste to uranium enrichment plants. I've been working from the suggestions of FAC 3 and Sandbh, fixing the article refs and performing a whole-article copyedit. I've also introduced a few new references to fill in unreferenced statement gaps. So here we go. Fourth time lucky, eh? Flevoland Parcly Taxel 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

The HarvErrors script suggests that 21 of the references listed in the Indexed references section are not cited. These should be deleted or moved to a Further reading section.Aa77zz (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Done in double quick time. Parcly Taxel 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Still one to sort out: Audi, G.; Bersillon, O.; Blachot, J.; Wapstra, A. H. (2003). --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not an error. I used the {{NUBASE 2003}} template in the citation, which HarvErrors mistakes for a redundant citation when in fact it is cited in the Isotopes section. Parcly Taxel 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the template and the article. --Mirokado (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

I have never seen the word monoisotopy before. Is it a real word? --John (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. @R8R Gtrs: mentioned it in the article's talk page as part of his pre-FAC check, all but one of whose suggestions I've weaved into the article. Parcly Taxel 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? It doesn't seem to exist on the Internet except on a couple of Wikipedia articles. --John (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Even I think "monoisotopy" is a highly technical term. It's been swapped out now. Parcly Taxel 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I just copied the words from the part of the article I quoted. I am clearly not to be the judge of how Englsih words are formed/used, since I wasn't born in any English-speaking country, and I haven't lived in any, nor am I now.--R8R (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out. Here's another nitpick:

Annotated periodic table colored mostly gray and green
Periodic table colored by how elements are treated in this article.
  Metals
  Nonmetals
  Noble gases
  Hydrogen
  Carbon
  Unknown properties

What is this table actually for? It does not mention halogens, though they are discussed in the article and its subject is one. Are noble gases also non-metals? Etc. --John (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a byproduct of the cumulative edits between the last FAC 3 years prior and now. From what you've said I also think that noble gases should come before nonmetals in the compounds section. That has been done, along with the legend's removal: the latter is all too redundant. Parcly Taxel 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This table is for a clearer difering the sets of elements discussed under each subheader. For example, antimony is mentioned among nonmetals, even though it is chemically closer to metals. The reader is explained what the borders between groups of elements under each header are via that table. Earler, those unobvious parts were explained in a note; that note is gone now for some reason. I'll get it back, compare with what we have now. Also, regarding the categories of the picture: each category of elements on the picture (metals, nonmetals, noble gases, hydrogen, carbon) coresponds to a category described in a subsection (Metals, Other nonmetals, Noble gases, Hydrogen, Organic chenistry). I hope that makes the purpose of the picture clear. Since it was obviously not as clear as intended (because of the missing note), I'll get the note back; if it's still unclear, please help make it more understandable.
Regarding titles: they are secondary to facts described under them. And it makes most sense (as I see it) to go in the order of hydrogen -- metals -- nonmetals -- noble gases -- organic chemistry. Then we can adjust the titles to the story. For example, nonmetals (other than noble gases and hydrogen) can be called "other reactive nonmetals," and the meaning is still clear. Or, if that's not good enough, we can add a line written in italics under the header explaining that, similar to {{redirect}}. There are options.--R8R (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the legend is back as a note; I've touched up the English as well. And then I realise we need more relentless critics, so this nomination won't stall. BANZAI! Parcly Taxel 04:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sandbh[edit]

I'm reasonably satisfied that this article meets all the FAC criteria bar (1a) prose; (2c) consistent citations; and (3) media. On prose I made some edits to the lead however User:Parcly Taxel has rewritten some of these, more or less back to the way they were. That is fine, however I remain personally dissatisfied with the standard of prose. Given any more of my edits to prose may be rewritten I will stop here. May I ask another editor to review the prose, in case I am being too pernickety? Re 2c, consistent citations, I have not looked closely at these to determine if they are satisfactory (I did see some Lide 2004 citations which need a pp rather than a p; and Burney 1999, which needs a p rather than a pp). Media looks OK but I haven't checked copyright status. 05:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh, tillie. I "reverted" some of those copyedits (@Sandbh: yours) because they actually made the prose look worse, not better (indeed, I noticed the fragmented nature of the sentences introduced – stoppy-movey). John knows better; I've left his copyedits as they were. As for the single and double p-letters, yes, that has been fixed. Parcly Taxel 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Noted and understood. I look forward to further developments. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
As for the media, none of them are fair use, the authors are properly cited and everything's fine under the sun and moon. FACR#3 is all smiles. Parcly Taxel 09:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Trader[edit]

Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Trader is a turn-based strategy video game developed by Slovakia-based studio 4Kids Games. It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS. The game was designed using Microsoft XNA, and its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals. The game consists of a player exploring and trading in a sixteenth century cartography-influenced map with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian. → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Fanny Bullock Workman[edit]

Nominator(s): Adam Cuerden (talk), Figureskatingfan (Christine), and Wadewitz, 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Fanny Bullock Workman, mountaineer, rock climber, suffragette, and feminist. It was one of the last articles being worked on by Adrianne Wadewitz before her untimely death, and between her excellent work and those of us wishing to finish it, we'd like to raise this up in her memory.

Okay, so what have I done? Well, I've reviewed it, fixed up some copyediting, checked and improved the images - probably will try to improve them a bit more through restoration and such, but that's surely not a requirement before nominating here - and her books are more than amply covered by my local library. So, let's do this! Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fanny_bullock_workman_d_1922.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh

  • Something to get out of the way early on: there are too many quotations that are unattributed and that could be paraphrased. e.g., in Move to Europe and cycling tours, "the role of "devoted mother" and instead became an "adventurer and author"" (can be paraphrased; if not, attribute them); "lyrical descriptions"; "The Workman's works are colonialist in that they describe the people they meet and observe as "at best as exotic or unusual, at worst as primitive or even subhuman"" (be clear about who wrote that); "commonplace" (surely this can be reworded... it's only one word).
  • I'm wary of what appear to be editorial summaries. e.g., "Popular reviewers, on the other hand, enjoyed the book. One reviewer in The Standard, wrote "We have no hesitation in saying that Dr. and Mrs. Workman have written one of the most remarkable books of travel of recent years."[16]" If No. 16 is the source of that first, summarizing, sentence, then add 16 explicitly. If it's not, then the first sentence needs a different source or to be cut. Another example: "Their rivalry demonstrated that women could climb in the remotest and most difficult terrain of the world, and that they were equal to male mountaineers" (needs a direct source, as it's hard for the reader to judge if this is the writer's synthesis or has been asserted explicitly by others).
I went through and sourced the quotes some more and did some paraphrasing, as per your request, which I believe will do away with the editorializing, even though I think that Wadewitz's method follows how quotes are handled in some academic literature. When Adam gets a hold of the sources, he can check for accuracy.
  • Small things: "the 45 miles (72 km)-long" (the hyphen is needed, but "miles" must be singular; there are several examples); multiple sources together should be in numerical order; use same date formatting throughout (e.g., infobox dob and dod differ); either abbreviate months or don't (don't is preferable – MOS:MONTH). EddieHugh (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the above, which was due to use of the convert template. I'm pretty sure I got them all; perhaps someone can go behing me and catch what I've missed or correct any errors.
Thank you for your comments; My sources are at the library, but I'll fix what I can without them tonight, and try to fix the library ones within a day or two (presuming Christine doesn't get to them first). Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I add my thanks for your comments; they'll make for a stronger article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Squall Leonhart[edit]

Nominator(s): Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional protaganist of the game Final Fantasy VIII created by Squaresoft, now Square Enix, in 1999 for the Sony Playstation. All references are working, the article has been Copy-edited and Peer reviewed. It was given GA status in 2006. I believe that since then sufficient improvement has been made to bring it up to FA status. Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark Kent (Smallville)[edit]

Nominator(s):  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional character that appeared in the television series Smallville. We have worked hard to really exhaust all possible sources and develop this article to the fullest of its capabilities. I recently had the article copy edited by the League of Copy Editors. I appreciate any feedback (no one visited the peer review before this) and support to make sure that his page meets all the necessary criteria for FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Love Club EP[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) and Adabow (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about New Zealand singer Lorde's debut major release, The Love Club EP. The EP revealed Lorde's fear and nervousness of becoming a new artist. For the development of the article, I have found as many sources as I could, so I think that this article is fully comprehensive now. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions to help improve the article. Thanks, Simon (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998
  • Looks great. Some points- Okay now I think this article needs some work. No worries, everything can easily be bettered.
  • "Lorde admitted that she was inspired by hip hop music-influenced music, such as Lana Del Rey" - consider changing "hip hop music-influenced music" to "hip hop music-influenced artists" to avoid repetition of "music." Using "artist" will also fit better with Lana Del Rey. In fact, even the "music" in "hip hop music-influenced" is not needed. I'd change it to "hip hop-influenced"
  • "It features Lorde's "smoky" vocal delivery" - awkward wording. Consider changing to "Lorde's vocal delivery on the album was described as "smoky" by Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail. Another critic, Chris Schulz of The New Zealand Herald, commented that her voice "seems to come from someone twice her age.""
"According to Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail, Lorde's vocals on the EP are "smoky"" - These kinds of sentences look okay on good articles. For a featured article, you're gonna have to come up with a better, more refined sentence.
  • "Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener" - Try adding some variation. Perhaps "New Zealand Listener critic Jim Pinckney"
  • " are structure[d is missing] in a short story manner" - Consider changing to "are structured in the manner of a short story" or "opined that the structure of the songs is similar to that of a short story." Also don't use "Lorde's songs"
  • More soon --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Gee, thanks! I have addressed all of your concerns. Simon (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The "short story" issue has not been addressed. Also see above for a new comment on the "smoky" voice thing. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How does it look now? Simon (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes looking good --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "it discusses Lorde feigning confidence" - the "discusses" just doesn't fit well, in my opinion.
  • "the two tracks" - you can remove "the"
  • "the former draws from" - draws what?
  • " Kanye West'" →" Kanye West's"
  • "high life" seems to have been directly borrowed from the Guardian. You can easily replace it with something life "criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich"
  • "The EP's title track" → The title track of the EP (try to avoid using apostrophes with nouns that are not proper nouns)
  • There you go. Best, Simon (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lyrically, the EP discusses "nervousness [Lorde] might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself"" - This sentence is contrived and changes the meaning of what the original writer meant. Reading the article by NZ Listener and specifically the sentence "Resolutely self-aware and confident, thankfully without the precociousness of talent-show youth, O'Connor displays remarkably little of the nervousness you might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself," it is obvious that the writer just meant that Lorde is confident and does not display nervousness. It does not seem to explain the lyrical theme of the EP.
  • Ah, right. How does it look now? Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "commercially release the EP for sales" - Isn't "for sales" redundant? Using the word "commercially" covers that
  • Moved "for sales". Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the interview, Lorde's manager says "So initially we gave away 60,000 tracks." Do "tracks" equate to an entire EP? ("After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP for sales"). Has the EP been downloaded 60,000 times?
I don't know whether individual tracks were available for download. I've replaced the citation used, which verifies that it was in fact 60,000 downloads of the EP. Adabow (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • In the infobox, I would drop the "At", remove the small text from "Morningside, Auckland, New Zealand", and place it in parentheses.
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would replace instances of "the US" with "the United States"; I forget where I heard it from, but it suggested that "United States" be used as a noun and "U.S." be used as an adjective when describing something (i.e. the U.S. Billboard 200).
"US" can be used as a noun. See [3]. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you include an as-of date to verify its sales in the United States?
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the word "admitted" in the "Background and production" section, how about something like "acknowledged", "commented", etc.?
Agreed; changed, thanks. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Composition" section, you mention that "Royals" was replaced by "Swingin Party" in the United States. If I remember correctly, this was done after "Royals" was released on Pure Heroine, is there any source you could add in that would verify this if this was the case?
I've see what I can dig up... Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've explained that the different tracklisting only came into affect in September 2013. Adabow (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Release and promotion" section, "Self-release (music)" should be relinked to "Self-publishing".
Why? Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the beginning of the "Reception" section, I would add a brief sentences about how the record received generally favorable reviews, just so it is available at a quick glance.
With only three critics mentioned, I feel that could be a bit dishonest to readers. There is a table with star ratings there, which offers a quick summary. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the track listing, can you reformat the title of the "New Zealand iTunes Store bonus track" so it matches the other two track listings?
I've slightly reworked the entire thing. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks in good shape, after these comments are addressed I'll check back in! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this page for FA. I have addressed the prose issues from the previous candidature with the help of Curly Turkey and believe the article now meets the criteria. Please note if there is any unresolved point and I will happily fix the problem.--Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Megadeth's second studio album was produced on a small budget from Combat Records. Not satisfied with these financial limitations, Megadeth soon left Combat and signed with Capitol Records. Capitol bought the rights to the upcoming album and hired producer Paul Lani to remix the earlier recordings. Released in late 1986, Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? was recorded on a budget of $25,000 and had clearer studio production and more sophisticated songwriting.: Is $25,000 the Combat or Capitol budget?
  • "On the road, things escalated from a small border skirmish into a full-on raging war", Mustaine later recalled, "I think a lot of us were inconsistent [on the 1988 tour] because of the guy we were waiting for after the show.": can you show this quote with the original punctuation?
  • Worth mentioning who Megdeth lost the 1993 Grammy to? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • and spanned eleven months, becoming Megadeth's most extensive tour to date.: but diidn't the 1987 tour last 72 weeks?
  • press response to the album was mixed. The Los Angeles Times noted the album for carrying diverse compositions, and described it as a "rousing balance" between the older material and experimental tunes.: We're told it got mixed reviews, and then are given a single quote that doesn't reflect that at all. If the quote is meant to introduce the idea of the diversity of the compositions, I'd reword it so it doesn't seem as if you're about to give a sample of the mixed reviews.
  • Mustaine fired manager Bud Prager and self-produced the album.: meaning it was produced by Mustaine or Megadeth?
  • Menza was dismissed shortly after rehearsing began. Mustaine stated that he was insufficiently prepared and "it just didn't work out". Unable to prepare for the physical demands of a full US tour, Menza was sent home a few days before the start of the tour in support of Megadeth's upcoming album: was he dismaissed twice? Was the rehearsal Menza was fired for rehearsal for the tour or the recording? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In May 2006, Megadeth announced that its eleventh studio album, United Abominations, was near completion. Although its release was originally scheduled for October 2006, Mustaine later revealed that the band was "putting the finishing touches on it", and postponed the release to May of the following year.: Would you object if I cut this down to Although scheduled for October 2006, Megadeth's eleventh album, United Abominations, was released May of the following year. or even just Megadeth's eleventh album, United Abominations, was released May 2007.? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In an interview in for Crypt Magazine, drummer Shawn Drover stated plans for a thirteenth Megadeth album.: This sounds trivial to me. Can we drop it? Actually, I think the whole paragraph could be condensed quite a bit by dropping these kinds of details and jumping right into th ealbum's recording and release. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Megadeth left Roadrunner Records for Mustaine's label, Tradecraft,: What's the story with this label? Was it freshly founded? If not, how come Megadeth wasn't on it before? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At the final show, Jason Newsted joined Megadeth onstage to perform "Phantom Lord", a song Mustaine had written during his stint with Metallica.: Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention Newsted's relation to Metallica? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • troubles arose concerning the band playing sideshows with Newsted: meaning they violated their contract by playing these shows, or what kind of troubles? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There was a mix of "number <digit>" and "number <word>" throughout. I made them all "number <word>", but feel free to go the other way. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The $25,000 budget would be from Combat Records. And about the tours being italicized or not, I think they shouldn't be. I'll see the liner notes for the quote. Regarding the Grammy issue, I don't think it's worth mentioning that Nine Inch Nails took the award that year. About the 2001 album, it was produced solely by Mustaine (I think that is stated pretty clear above). Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see it in the MoS, but it came up a few times on the MoS talk page, and each time it was recommended not to italicize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "self-produced": yes, grammatically that's what is said, but it's still ambiguous as the last time an album was "self produced" (Killing is my Business) it was done by the band. It leaves the reader wondering if what's being said is what's really what was meant. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the information about Thirteen is trivial. As for United Abominations, it might stay since we're talking about an album delay, something that has not happened with any of the previous albums. But I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you'll keep it or not. But if omitting the sentence, please post it to the album article in order not to lose the information. By the way, thanks for the awesome job you're doing.--Retrohead (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm done with copyediting. If you can get through the last couple of little things above, I'll be ready to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Megadeth didn't play the Soundvawe festival because the concerts with Newsted weren't originally scheduled, or in other words, the tour promoter violated the initial contract. As for Menza, he was fired once in 2004, during rehearsal, with the explanation that he wasn't prepared. It's kinda odd that the tour started before the album was released, but the band was rehearsing for the tour, not that they were doing recording sessions.--Retrohead (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding Ellefson's departure, Mustaine accused Ellefson of slandering him and lying about him to the press that the arm injury was fake.: the source for this is Dave Mustaine, and I'm not quite sure this really summarizes what he said, either. Anyways, I've removed it. Can you find a better source for the Ellefson situation? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In the book Mustaine: A Heavy Metal Memoir, Dave said the same thing. I've gone through Ellefson's biography as well, but there is no mentioning of this incident. Honestly, you can't expect Ellefson to admit this is his own book. But since Blabbermouth.net is a third-party source, I think we can go with that one.--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The entire article is a quotation of Mustaine. Mustaine is not a third-party source—he's a primary source, and we must avoid primary sources when the details are (potentially damaging) details about living persons (see WP:BLP). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, removed the entire sentence according to the Wiki policy. Regarding the cancelled shows with Newsted, I'm not sure even the journalist himself knows what the real reason was. I saw that you re-worded it, so I think we can cross that too. As for the quote from the liner notes of So Far, So Good... So What!, it is cited properly, except for the big brackets, which were added so the reader can know to which event Mustaine is referring to.--Retrohead (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm ready to support on prose. I still highly recommend adding a few more images—at the very, very, very least you should add the logo, as in Metallica, and I really think you should go with that File:Iron Maiden 05.jpg in the "Influences and style" section as well. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Added the logo with a brief description. Thanks for all of the suggestions and support.--Retrohead (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • Some external links that need to be corrected.
  • I would like to do a check for disambiguation links, but it seems like that tool is down, so I will come back for those later on.
  • In the infobox, "United States" can be abbreviated "U.S."
  • Instead of formatting the titles like "Early days (1983–84)", I would suggest renaming them like "1983–84: Early days", which seems to be a standard practice.
  • I think that the inline music samples in the body of the article can be moved into the "Influences and style" section, which I believe will make them more accessible than they currently are.
  • The "Controversy" section should probably be renamed "Controversies" because there are numerous incidents that they were involved in.
  • The "Studio albums" subheading under "Discography" can be removed because discography sections are only supposed to list studio albums anyway.
  • Also in the "Discography" section, perhaps since there are several studio albums they could be split into two columns?
  • The referral to List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth alone will suffice in the "Awards" section, since it is a well-maintained featured list.

WikiRedactor (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi WikiRedactor. Thanks for the comments, I'll start addressing them as soon as I'm finished with Curly Turkey's ones. Just to note that the list with awards was incorporated because the GA reviewer suggested so, and removing it could drag some oppose from another reviewer. I intended splitting the albums in two columns, but Curly Turkey suggested such a change isn't semantic, so I'll leave that too. The rest of the notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The way it was handled before was unsemantic, but there are other ways to handle it: for example. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor, I've done the majority of the notes. I've made the samples more visible and accessible now, but kept them in the history section since their use is about those events. Also kept the list with the awards, as explained above. Thanks for the constructive input.--Retrohead (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I'm pleased with the corrections made, and am happy to give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

  • "Megadeth is a thrash metal band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 1983 by guitarist Dave Mustaine and bassist David Ellefson, shortly after Mustaine's dismissal from Metallica"- I am not sure the last comma is needed.
  • " A pioneer of the American thrash metal scene, the band is credited as one of the genre's "big four" along with Anthrax, Metallica, and Slayer, who were responsible for thrash metal's development and popularization" - Claims like such should include citations since it is challengeable (See WP:LEADCITE).
  • "prominent" or "common"?
  • " MTV has refused to play two of the band's videos that the network considered to condone suicide."- The lead should generally include general stuff about the band. This seems too specific. The sentence preceding this can cover this by becoming " The group has experienced controversy over its musical approach and lyrics, including canceled concerts and bans of albums and music videos".
  • "Rauch" changes to "Rausch" in the first section.
  • "After considering a few recording labels, Mustaine signed with Combat Records, a New York-based independent label that offered him the highest budget for recording an album and starting a promotional tour"- Seems like Mustaine joined the label, not the entire band.
  • If Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! is referred as such throughout the article, then why even have one instance as Killing Is My Business...?
  • Side comment- Oh god drugs drugs drugs everywhere
  • I don't know if it is intentional or not but this article seems very Mustaine-centric.
  • More comments later. The prose is good in general. I suggest making sure that everything mentioned is supported by the sources and that nothing is directly taken from the sources (without being put in quotations). --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a close look at the prose, there were some spelling and copyediting mistakes that I accidentally overlooked. About the "big four" cite, trust me, there are zillion references on Google Books that confirm that moniker, and that is probably the least challenging aspect of the lead. Indeed, the article sounds Mustaine-centric because Mustaine was actually the band (he is even jokingly nicknamed as "MegaDave"). All other notes, except for the comma in the opening sentence, were addressed.--Retrohead (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That comma could easily be dropped without affecting the meaning, but it's up to you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed that comma is not needed at all. As for the challengeable part, the "probably the least challenging aspect of the lead" is coming from you, who I assume to be a fan of the band. A person like me, who does not know much about the band (other than the fact that they share a song's title with Shakira), may not find this justifiable without supporting sources. If necessary, include the zillion references if that works to make this article stronger. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're honestly challenging the "big four" thing, then perhaps a cite is warranted, but seriously, no more than a few seconds googling would dispel any doubts. The "big four" designation goes back at least as far as the early 90s, when I first heard it. It's a firmly-rooted meme, and cited more than once in the body. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine then. Metal is not big in this part of the world, so maybe that's why I am not aware. Also, the MTV point has not been addressed. And if the Mustaine-centric tone can be explained through the "MegaDave" thing, a suggestion would be to include that term somewhere in the article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction to Curly Turkey's note, the "big four" tag has been used since 1986/87, when all of those bands released the "genre-defining" albums. I thought about dropping the MTV sentence, but do we have an alternative to replace that? The lead will become too brief in that case. As for the article being Mustaine-centric, it is because the sources have focused on him as the band's leading figure. If you check the members timeline, you'll see that him and Ellefson were the only consistent members, in addition to Mustaine writing and composing 98% of the group's songs.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing a sentence will certainly not make the lead "brief." I will not focus on that anymore now and just lay out a few more points.
  • I am randomly reading sections for prose check. There is one in the Controversies section. "The government to pointed the band's mascot Vic Rattlehead..." - You know what's wrong here.
  • I am randomly picking out a sentence and checking whether it is supported by the source. This will be formally done by another editor later I believe. But nevermind- "The band spent nearly four months in the studio with Norman, writing and recording what became Megadeth's most commercially successful effort, Countdown to Extinction" - The Chicago Tribune source does not really confirm this. The four months part is absent, and the "commercially" successful part, while true since it's got their highest certifications, is only implied by the source: it calls the disc "commercial," which is not the equivalent of "commercially successful."
The Google definition of "commercial" states "making or intended to make a profit". Nonetheless, that can easily be confirmed, since it's the only multi-platinum Megadeth album (2× Platinum according to RIAA). The intro being short was specifically pointed in the GA review, and having two videos banned by MTV is not something you commonly see at other artists. Referring to Vic Rattlehead, can you be more specific on what is incorrect with the sentence?--Retrohead (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That google definition is exactly what I meant. As for the double platinum cert: in addition to the book, cite the certifying body database too i.e RIAA (Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications states "Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database."). "The government to pointed the band's mascot Vic Rattlehead as inappropriate and told the members that they would be arrested if they performed." - Either that is a "too" or "pointed to". The choice of words "pointed" and "told" isn't all that great too. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The sentence about the Vic was corrected. As for Countdown being the band's most commercially successful album, even Nielsen Soundscan reported 2,322,000 copies sold in the US, and compared to Youthanasia's 997,000 (their second best) is undoubtedly the group's best seller. It is clearly written in the liner notes that the recording started on January 6 and ended on April 28, 1992→which is nearly four months.--Retrohead (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not doubting that it hasn't sold that much. What I mean to say is that "Released in July 1992, Countdown to Extinction entered the Billboard 200 chart at number two, and earned double-platinum status in the United States" should also cite this. I also suggest using better words than "pointed" and "told" in that Vic sentence. And you need to include all that nielsen stuff and liner notes in this sentence "The band spent nearly four months in the studio with Norman, writing and recording what became Megadeth's most commercially successful effort, Countdown to Extinction" instead of explaining it all to me. My comments stop here.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The liner notes are already cited (ref 63) and the certification number is sourced with Joyner's book. Appreciate your input so far.--Retrohead (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The certification number may be covered in the book, fine. But as per the guideline suggestion of Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications ("Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database"), I highly recommend adding a reference pointing to the RIAA database. I will give my support once this change is made. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The cite was added.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Support --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review
  • Several captions could use editing for grammar
  • File:Megadeth_in_Porto_Alegre.jpg: I think the mascot's image is prominent enough in this image that we would need to consider its copyright status
  • Per WP:SAMPLE, non-free samples should not exceed the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original track. "Since "Peace Sells" is only 4 minutes long, 27 seconds is too long a sample. The FUR for that excerpt is also quite weak.
  • File:MegadethLogoDileo.png: can we add in the actual creator and date of creation for the logo?
  • File:Megadeth_Symphony_of_Destruction.ogg: please fill in the "n.a.". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, according to the Template:Information, the author and the source fields in File:MegadethLogoDileo.png are already filled. Did you mean to incorporate the actual author (Dave Mustaine) and the year the logo was actually created (1986)? As for the first note, can you be a little more precise and mention which of the image captions you find unsuitable?--Retrohead (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, nevermind, the notes were addressed, except for shortening the "Peace Sells" audio, which Dawnseeker2000 should handle it soon. The rationales were properly filled, and the prose in the image and audio descriptions was corrected too.--Retrohead (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Pendright

The 18 Mahan-class destroyers incorporated notable improvements in design over their predecessors, including advanced propulsion machinery, more torpedo tubes, and superimposed gun shelters. They served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. A few of them were devastated by the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, and others escaped unharmed. In the South Pacific, some of them took part in campaigns to retake the Santa Cruz Islands, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and others. Ultimately, six of them were lost in combat, two were expended in postwar tests, and the remainder were eventually sold or scrapped. Together, the class earned 111 battle stars for their service in the war. This article just passed an A-class review.

In World War II, I served aboard USS Mahan and Cone. My tour of duty took me to the South Pacific and Europe from 1943 to 1946, when I was honorably discharged. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article.

Pendright (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
N.B. This review was only transcluded to the FAC list on 1 July 2014. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 3 July 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) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking. I got rid of a few "spring"s, in one case substituting "April", which isn't stated but is strongly implied by the source. Please check whether you agree with this. WP:SEASON is good guidance that we shouldn't use seasons to denote times, unless the season is important (Autumn harvest etc). Examples like Hawaii are in places where (I believe) there are no seasons to speak of. Captions which aren't sentences don't need periods. I added the propulsion system to the lead. Looking good so far. I am looking forward to properly reading it. --John (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much John. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I agree with the substitution change. I’m on board with spring and summer and your point about captions is well taken.
However, an explanation is necessary about the sentence in the lead that contains your addition. This has been changed several times since my original version and now reads: “The Mahans were the first of many new destroyers to use steam turbines, a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster and more efficient than reciprocating engines.” It should read: “The Mahans were the first destroyers to use a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster, and more efficient than their predecessors.” I should have been more vigilant about the changes. A look at the last paragraph of the article’s Design section and the entire Construction section will help clear this up. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you mention the propulsion system in the lead, if it's important? --John (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
If I understand your question correctly, I did think it important enough to mention in the lead. My original wording (still intact 2 February 2014, passing GA status 15 December 2013) said: “The class introduced a new propulsion system that changed the technology for future wartime destroyers.” Although short, it seemed to meet the requirements of the WK: Manual of Style/Lead section, serving as an introduction and summary of an important aspect of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is better to actually state the type of propulsion in the lead. --John (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree and have done so with that idea in mind. BTW, thank you for all the various fixes. Pendright (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Question Sold or scrapped? --John (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both, according to DANFS - Pendright (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments As a general comment, the article repeatedly refers to 'Auckland, New Zealand' - I think that the country only needs to be specified once. There are also other redundant geographical terms sprinkled through the article. As more specific comments, having so many ship histories is a real challenge for this article, and I'm not sure that they're up to FA standard at present. My comments on this section of the article are:

  • "a Japanese Kamikaze squadron " - were these suicide aircraft or suicide ships? (the term squadron can apply to either). Also, I don't think that Kamikaze air units were organised or deployed as formal squadrons
These were Japanese suicide aircraft. True, the word squadron has many meanings and may not be a good fit here. So, I substituted “a group of Japanese suicide aircraft” instead. In Kamikaze, Raymond Lamont-Brown notes (pp. 63-64) that the Kamikaze was organized into units, and deployed on a “standard best ratio” sortie formulation of five Kamikaze, three to attack and two escort aircraft. Group seizes could vary, depending on circumstances. Pendright (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In April, Cummings was sent to the Indian Ocean where she joined the British Eastern Fleet" - needs context. She was probably one of the ships sent to escort the USS Sarratoga.
Added context - Pendright (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Cummings rejoined the main US fleet" - there was no such formation as the main US fleet as the US Pacific Fleet operated in several major groups (the Fast Carrier Task Force was the main striking force - and I presume is what is being referred to here, but there were also huge amphibious forces)
US 3rd Fleet - fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Drayton assisted in the search for the lost American pilot" - did she participate in the search, or provide assistance to the forces which were engaged in it?
Assisted was my word of choice. The source actually says Drayton took part in the search, which is to say she participated in it. Pendright (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "she escorted a convoy to Christmas Island" - I suspect that the link here should be to the Christmas Island in the Pacific, and not the one in the Indian Ocean
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Drayton escorted Australian troops from Townsville, Australia, to Milne Bay, New Guinea" - ships carrying Australian troops, not Australian troops ;)
Fixed by John 1 June 2014 - Pendright (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Suva in Tahiti" - Suva is in Fiji
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "the offensive to regain the Japanese-held Mariana Islands" - not sure about 're-gain': only Guam was pre-war US territory. The other islands which were invaded had been Japanese territory since the 1920s (and had previously been German, from memory)
You’re correct: regain is not the appropriate word here. I substituted, gain possession of - Pendright (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the ship screened carriers during the air strikes on the Japanese fleet" - which carriers and which fleet? (the escort carriers off Leyte which were engaged by Japanese battleships, or the fast carriers off Luzon which attacked the Japanese carrier force? - again, I presume that you're referring to the fast carrier force)
    • Downes was assigned to TG 38.1.2. at the time, so yes, she was screening the FCTF attacking Ozawa's decoys. I've clarified the text in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "was able to fire six torpedoes by local control at a Japanese battleship, with unknown results" - has the massive body of post-war scholarship on the Guadalcanal campaign really not clarified this? (I'd suggest consulting a better source than DANFS here)
Rohwer and Cressman both mention the sinking of Cushing, but nothing else. Roscoe describes the torpedo incident in some detail, which Is the source used. Pendright (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "took part in landing a Marine division" - that would be the 1st Marine Division, and it seems preferable to specify this
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • the landing by an Australian unit - the unit was the 7th Division (or you could simply refer to 'an Australian force' given that lots of units were assigned to the division
    • Changed to "an Australian force" (but I have no preference). - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "followed by a trip to Japan in August 1945" - what did this involve? This was obviously a pretty dramatic time to be in Japanese waters, and 'trip' seems rather laconic!
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In March, she was part of the Combined Far Eastern Fleet" - see the above comment for Cummings (also, I don't think that there was a 'Combined Far Eastern Fleet' - the 'Eastern Fleet' was a British unit to which forces from various other countries were attached)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "launching strikes against Sabang, Indonesia" - she participated in these strikes, but didn't launch them Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. And thanks too for recognizing the challenge of working with 18 individual ship summaries. Pendright (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Those changes all look good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Pendright left a message on my userpage that he's not sure how to respond. I see some of these have been handled already; anyone want to take a crack at the rest? - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Dank apparently misunderstood my post, I am willing and able to respond and I intend to do so myself. Pendright (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for misunderstanding. What I asked for is nothing special; we help out at FAC all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No problem! Ordinarily, I’d accept all the help I could get. In this case, I think it’s my responsibility to make an effort to address all the questions put to me by the reviewers. If I get stuck, I’ll yell! Sorry for this little episode. Pendright (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks to be an extremely solid article and not bogged down in the (slightly) arcane technical detail which sometimes affects "-class" ship articles! Just a couple of things which don't affect my support:
    • There seems to be an inconsistency in the table heading style. All bold, all grey whatever, but they should probably be the same.
Makes sense - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made some very minor MOS changes here.
Much obliged - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
And, of course, great to see a Wikipedia editor who was actually there! Brigade Piron (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and kind words. Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review - only one photo needs to be addressed:

  • File:USSFlusserDD368.jpg - appears to have been uploaded from Navsource, after any markings that would identify the photo have been cropped off. There's no source there to prove it was a USN photo, so without another source (in a book, perhaps?) we can't use this photo. There are, however, several photos on the Navsource page that still have their "Official Photograph" stamps, and I can upload any of those if you'd like. There's also File:USS Flusser (DD-368)Jun44.png, which has a good source - the camouflage is an interesting pattern.
Please do, that would be very helpful - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You want to use the camouflage one? Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, thanks! Pendright (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All other photos are sourced as USN photos and thus fine to use.
Good news! - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only other suggestion for the article that I'd make is to link some of the major battles - Coral Sea, Tassafaronga, Leyte Gulf, etc. - in the introduction. You might also want to link Operation Crossroads in the lead. I might be too involved between too involved my edits and the help I've given Pendright over the past year and half to offer an unqualified support, but the closing delegate can determine what weight to give my comments. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
For my clarification, are you saying to weave a reference of each of these battles into the lead and then link them at that point? Pendright (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of "All 18 ships saw action in World War II, entirely in the Pacific Theater of Operations, including during the battles of Coral Sea, the Guadalcanal campaign, Leyte Gulf, [and anything else you want to include]. Their participation in major and secondary campaigns included the bombardment of beachheads, amphibious landings, task force screening, convoy and patrol duty, and anti-aircraft and submarine warfare."
And then "Six ships were lost in combat and two were expended in the postwar Operation Crossroads nuclear tests" or something like that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, good! Pendright (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Done - please look it over - Pendright (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Missing bibliographic info for Hodges and Friedman
  • All DANFS links should include that as work
  • Hümmelchen or Hummelchen?
  • Naval Institute Press or US Naval Institute Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject to review, I believe I’ve cleaned up the items in question – except the one for DANFS. The term is unfamiliar to me, so would you be kind enough to explain it further. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've taken care of the work parameter for the DANFS entries. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment leaning support. I tend to review these as a person who is unfamiliar with ships that don't have a Lido Deck, but I can't resist the FAC nominating statement ... thank you for your service ... a few quibbles ...
Lede
  • "Rear-Admiral" are you certain on the hyphen? Further ahead, you refer to Rear Admiral Daniel Barbey sans hyphen.
Hyphen removed from Rear Admiral - Pendright (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "including during the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battles of Santa Cruz Islands, Leyte Gulf and Iwo Jima." there seems to be a missing "and" before "the Battles". Which I'm not sure should be capitalized.
Inserted the word and - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Design
  • "to accommodate No. 3 gun ahead of No. 4." I think you should probably make clearer that No. 3 was moved, not eliminated, that all five guns were retained (I only was certain of this once I consulted the infobox). I take it that this is the subject of "This required relocating one 5"/38 gun to the aft deckhouse." a few lines down? This should probably be consolidated.
Done - If the changes are not what you had in mind, please let me know. Pendright (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The traditional destroyer machinery was replaced with a new generation of land-based machinery" can an example of the replaced machinery be given?
  • "the tripod foremast" suggest "their" replace "the" to keep the focus on the ships and avoid the change of subject.
  • "Displacement increased to 1,500 tons from 1,365 tons." this should probably be merged into the statistics in the next paragraph. I see the 1,500 figure is there already (properly with convert template)
  • Consider cropping the image at the foot of the infobox to remove the caption.
Armament
  • "twelve 21-inch torpedoes" I see a link in the infobox to that armament article. I would put one here as well.
Dunlap
  • If most naval historians don't consider them a separate class, then is the word "class" properly applied to them? I should, as a textual note, try to reduce the use of the word "class" in the first sentence by the way.
Construction
  • Was the propulsion system based on those used in the passenger liners? If so, then the technology was available to the US Navy, wasn't it? If so, then I would change the phrase to "used in the US Navy" or similar, as well as state that the basis of the technology was the system used in the Gibbs liners.
Ships in class
  • Conyngham "destroyed by sinking" is there a more artful way of putting this?
  • Shaw space needed between 1 and October. I would routinely correct this, but I am doing this offline.
Service history--Cummings
  • "Trincomalee, Ceylon ... Sabang, Indonesia" watch for consistency in whether you refer to places by WWII-era or modern names. For example New Guinea/Papua New Guinea
  • "The ship operated off Okinawa during its invasion" What standard are you using to decide if battles referred to in the text should be piped to?
Flusser
  • "Hollandia Jayapura" You referred to this place using parentheses for the second name before. Later on, you refer to it just as "Hollandia". Not saying any of this is necessarily wrong, just drawing it to your attention.
Case
  • " Ponape Island" link?
  • "Following repairs at Saipan, she patrolled between Saipan " I would replace the second Saipan with "there".
Conyngham
  • "battle of Midway Island" definitely worth a link.
  • "Decommissioned in December 1946, Conyngham was used in the atomic weapons test at Bikini in 1946" Before decommissioning or in whatever remained of the year after December?
Cassin
  • "She reported to Pearl Harbor in April" Wasn't she already there?
  • "prisons of war from Japan." presumably prisoners.
Smith
  • "Battle of Santa Cruz". By a majority of five to three, you call this the "Battle of Santa Cruz Islands", although with one of the minority, you do not capitalize battle. Please check.
  • "Nagasaki Harbor, Kyushu, Japan, in August 1945" I guess what I'm wondering is if there's anything to be said about Nagasaki's atomic bombing (I realize the ship did not participate in that, but it was plainly there soon after).
Preston
  • "Afterward, the ship rolled onto her side and sank" I would strike the word "Afterward," Plainly it didn't happen before.
Fanning
  • "Doolittle raid on their air strike against Tokyo." Are you sure on the plural?
  • "Munda Island" link?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Imagine, if you will, two aircraft colliding in mid-air and, rather than exploding or spinning out of control, they remain locked together in piggyback fashion and continue to fly by virtue of the still-functioning engines of one plane and the control surfaces of the other –- not to mention one pilot's iron nerves! Well, imagine no longer, it happened over the little town of Brocklesby in south-eastern Australia during World War II. Add to this a tragically ironic aftermath and I think we have some ideal Main Page fodder, assuming it passes muster here. Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 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) 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone.

  • Extraordinary event, with a particularly nasty twist in the tail for poor Fuller.
  • Good background as well as detail of the accident and the fates of the four airmen involved.
  • Referencing looks sound.
  • You might want to think about giving slightly more detail for the external links, such as who hosts them. They read as both rather bare and abrupt as currently phrased. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point, will do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a fairly obscure gold commemorative, the only "two-headed" US coin, and about the preparation for which not much is known, due to lack of surviving records. Still, it's an interesting tale, featuring Farran Zerbe, numismatic promoter, who's mostly remembered positively these days but who was controversial in his timeWehwalt (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox are unsourced
  • There are a number of HarvErrors that need correcting
  • FN7 title needs endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Those things are fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • The article is still listed at GAN. I thought that concurrent GAN and FAC was disallowed?
  • I think, just "President Thomas Jefferson" rather than "American President..."
  • Do we know William Clark's military rank?
  • "a fair to be held in Portland, located along the party's route." Not clear if it's the fair or Portland that's on the route; a little rewording would clarify.
  • There are issues arising from image overcrowding. For example, the Zerbe portrait, supposedly placed in the "Inception" section, appears in my display under the "Design" heading, with the top of the photo extending across the wording. I don't know how this can be fixed other than by reducing the number of images, though possibly some repositioning could sort it out? However, there's not a lot of text to play with.
  • "Numismatic references that discuss the matter..." – we usually identify our sources; any reason for this form?
  • Production: this sentence had me muddled: "The Mint struck 35,000 plus assay pieces in March and June in anticipation of further orders, doing so as the Philadelphia Mint shut down in the summer in that era before air conditioning, but as none were forthcoming, the additional 25,000 were melted". I can follow what happened, but bthe detil about the lack of air-conditioning (or "air cooling" as it was known then) is a bit distractinng and, I think, unnecessary. Recommend delete all between "doing so" and "air conditioning".
  • We are told, later, that 40,003 were melted. The extra 15,000 melts are not identified until the next section, but here I'd say something like: "of which a total of 40,003 were melted".
  • "The 1905 long traded for less..." Wording could do with clarification, e.g. "The 1905 coin traded for many years for less..."

The image overcrowding is likely to be the only significant issue – the others are easily dealt with. Welcome back, Messrs Zerbe and Meeker (he crops up everywhere). Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Meeker appears by author's privilege, I am afraid! I tried for an image of him there but my expert didn't have anything useful. Just as well. I've made the recommended changes and withdrawn the GAN (I thought it had passed). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: The images are better deployed; that of Sacajawea seems only marginally relevant and could be dropped without detriment. Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support. I will think over the image, but that is where the money went, what there was of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • explorers's or explorers'?
  • Any way to avoid that white space in #Production?
  • CN tag added — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin)[edit]

Ceoil (talk), Johnbod (talk)

This portrait often appears in popular overviews of 15th century art, but has recieved relatively little scholarship. Painted around 1470, it contains many Early Netherlandish and Gothic characteristics, and sits uneasily between the two. This was a terribly difficult article to write. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

It would I think be wrong to call the article by such a common title, especially one made up by modern curators. In fact we don't have any other articles on paintings called this, so there is as yet no disam page. There's a case for lumping it with Portrait of a Young Woman (a disam page). I don't think she is in fact what a "young girl" normally means, but I suppose Berlin in 1820-odd had no word for teenager. Perhaps we should do a stub on the Durer of the same name, as it happens in the same museum. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave that to you to deceide, but why (Christus, Berlin) rahter than just (Christus)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It is often refered in the literature as the Berlin portrait. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the inline cites are not required in the lead; it would be nice (cleaner & friendlier) to see them moved out
They are MOS compliant, and the quote at least requires one. Typically, reviewers are more likely to complain in the opposite direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I know they're MoS compliant, and I wouldn't oppose over them, I just think it would be more reader-friendly without them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • a "Background" section would be nice---there's a lot of background taken for granted in the prose, not just diretly with regards to painting, but also stuff such as "the patronage of the newly emerging middle class, secularising portraiture, and removing it from the preserve of royalty"
That's all in the FA Early_Netherlandish_painting; I've made the link clearer (lead 1st line). One could add a bit. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume it would be, but it shouldn't be assumed that many have clicked through before reading this article. If it could be summed up in a couple of sentneces, I think it would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The MoS recommends "c." with a period, but doesn't specifically say to avoid "c" without a period ...
Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Waagen associated lettering; Joel Upton supports; Max Friedländer proposed: Who?
Gustav Waagen link moved to first mention, and explained. I don't like saying that people who one would expect from the context to be art historians are in fact just that. Of course if they are not that's a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
  • a small oil on oak panel painting: "oil-on-oak" should be hyphenated here, but I think it would read better as a small oil panel painting on oak or a small oil painting on oak panel
Done Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • that of Netherlandish portraiture: is there something good to link to here?
Early_Netherlandish_painting#Portraiture , done Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The wall sets her in a recognisable interior: recognizable as an interior, or as a particular interior? What is "recognisable"?
Gone now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is both a major stylistic advance in Christus' oeuvre and that of Netherlandish portraiture, not just that the sitter is no longer set against a flat, neutral background; here she is placed in an airy, three-dimensional, realistic setting.: the "not just" signals to the reader that something like a "but" would follow, but instead we're greeted with a semicolon in a somewhat jarring manner. It also makes the assumption that the reader would know that earlier paintings had "flat, nutral background"s.
Redone. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • her complex stare is reserved, but alert and intelligent: does "alert and intelligent" contrast with "reserved"?
Enough, I think Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Art historian Joel Upton described the lady as resembling "a polished pearl, almost opalescent, lying on a cushion of black velvet.": I'm not a fan of these kinds of quotes in the lead. Is it widely quoted on the literature on the painting, so that it would somehow constitute part of the "overview" of the subject that the lead is supposed to be?
No, but since one is never able to say anything enthusiastic about works thanks to the ever-vigilant PEACOCK patrol, this is best done by quotation (would be in any case) and it is best done at the start. No, the quotation is not well-known, but little is about this work. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, at the very least, the quote should also appear in the body that the lead's supposed to summarize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Northern Renaissance article capitalizes "Northern Renaissance". Is the lowercase a common, accepted alternative?
Caps added. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the most significant successor of the second generation: at first blush, this reads as if he had succeeded the second generation.
Rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Description[edit]
  • naturalistic enough to be a space within her home: what about being "naturalistic" would classify it as a space in her home?
rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • which Sterling notes is indebted to van Eyck: I assume the influence of van Eyck rather than the man himself?
Yes, is this unclear? Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • oriental eyes: link to Epicanthic fold? and isn't "oriental" kind of old-fashioned?
  • the Gothic ideal: something good to link to here?
Don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • and seems possessesed by an unusual elegance: "unusual" in what sense?
Reworded to make clearer. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • some art historians have described as unnerving.: such as?
  • virtually unprecedented in Italian portrait painting at that time: aren't we in the Low Countries?
Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • rarely found, if at all,: is there some question as to whether it's found at all?
Reworded Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the male chaperon hat, which always has a long tailing cornette, sometimes worn in this way: I was going to link to cornette, but the article says it's "a piece of female headwear". Do you know more about this?
Well yes, as I wrote chaperon. Not sure what the question is. The female wimple cornettes are different. Here the girl wears one of the male scarf-like sort, which is not that unusual on women too. Added a bit. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • almost white skin and almost sculpted bone structure: "almost ... almost"
Now "almost white skin and strong bone structure" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • and even Robert Campin: this is jarring—we shouldn't assume the reader knows what Campin's advances were or what their relation to Christus' work might have been
Cut "even" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • in favour of an elongation of form; emphasised by way the narrow, slight upper body and head are, according to art historian Robert Suckale, "heightened by the V-shaped neckline of the ermine and the cylindrical hat.": I'm having trouble parsing this. Something's wrong; I'm not sure what.
Rewritten (a "the" was missing for a start). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Identity[edit]
  • of the English Talbot family: which English Talbot family?
There is Baron Talbot, but the relevant ones are the 1st & 2nd Earls of Shrewsbury, both linked when mentioned just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Since it has just been introduced, though, wouldn't "an" be more appropriate? Otherwise it sounds like the article's namedropping a family we should be expected to know (like "the Medici"). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Redone Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Archibald Russell establishes: maybe "has established"?
Changed to "established" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Joel Upton supports Waagen's: maybe "Joel Upton's analysis supports" or somesuch? Otherwise the present tense seems weird.
Rewritten. There is another "analysis" just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Provenance[edit]
  • it commanded an unusually high price: is the price known?
Yes, but it's not much use by itself - I think it was 40 florins. Stapleton publishes and translates the whole thing, which known from a later copy. Maybe could do a note comparing it with other works priced up in the inventory, but this is fiddly. I think we are working from google preview, which gives the introductory essay but not the list itself. in UK anyway. In fact, with a Van Eyck, it was the most expensive of the 42 Netherlandish paintings recorded. See here; the top price was 100 florins for the Fra Angelico tondo now in Washington, but a small Fra Angelico was only valued at 5 florins. Rewritten a bit; the identity of the 1492 work with that in Berlin is not certain. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe best to shove it into a footnote? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • indicating that their interest: is "they" the Medici?
Yes, rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok in a picture caption, but could go to "showing". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • northern painter: should "northern" be capitalized here?
Usually not I think - like "N/northern Europe". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • also identified the Saint Eligius panel: the Saint Eligius is also by Christus?
Yes, but... Now: "In this way, Waagan also identified Christus' so-called Saint Eligius panel, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (and seen as just a portrait of a goldsmith)" Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • a number of paintings had been attributed to Jan van Eyck: meaning paintings by Christus, or paintings in general?
Added "his", though until this date anything from northern Europe before about 1520 was liable to be attributed to Jan van Eyck (after that it was all Durer). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • hence the confusion with the older painter who often signed his work with similar phraseology if signed with separate names, why would there be confusion?
  • I'll look after this. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Taking this out for the time being. The sources are a bit confusing as to why anyone thought this. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Dating[edit]
  • hidden comment: lots of blanks to be filled in here; Sterling assumes familiarity with the literature: are there still lots of blanks to be filled in, or can this comment be removed?
  • Its removed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • as executed later: or "to have been"?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Notes[edit]
  • Frère, Jean Claude. Early Flemish painting. Terrail, 2007: no pages?

File check[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything here, or any of my copyedits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of sources
  • One three-author work uses et al in short cites, while the other lists all three - be consistent
  • FN18: author name doesn't match that given in Sources
  • Missing bibliographic info for Sterling
  • Nash is a book and should have its title italicized
  • Upton: check location. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikki; all resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Aphthous stomatitis[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Nick (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am an IP and I asked someone on the Help IRC to nominate this article for me because I cannot create pages. I will be responding to the improvements, but from different IPs time to time.-- Matthew Ferguson. 188.29.86.17 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This page was not transcluded on WP:FAC. I have done so now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Crisco. I am just starting a new job so there may be a few days delay before I answer any comments, but I am committed to bringing the article to a higher standard. Lack of standardization in the references format will probably be an issue so I will preempt this and fix it in due course. 188.28.128.90 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  1. Why so many citations in the lead? See WP:LEADCITE
  2. Fixed number of columns is deprecated in {{reflist}} in favour of column width
  3. {{page needed}} tag needs addressing
  4. Formatting of authors is currently quite inconsistent - pick a style and stick to it
  5. Use title caps for journals
  6. Use a consistent date format
  7. FN28: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, many thanks for start of review. I will address these points over the next few days. 92.40.94.138 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. I can remove some of these citations if needed, although some sources only occur in the lead and not in the body of the article
  2. I thought so, however I was being reverted. I will put it back.
  3. Epeefleche has kindly offered to find the page number in due course. If not the source can safely be removed as the newspaper source will still support all the content in that section.
  4. I am aware and in process of making them consistent. All authors now follow format Lastname Firstnameinitial.
  5. OK, will do.
  6. I am aware and in process of making them consistent
  7. Sorry, what is FN28 format?
    The current footnote 28, Liu C, Tseng A, Yang S (2004)., is missing part of its title, and the Google Books link should be truncated after pg=PA533. The current footnote 29, previously footnote 28, should have the publication title italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, just to be 100% clear, title caps is as follows: "British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery", correct? 92.40.92.255 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Re FN28 and 29, all done. 92.40.92.255 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the correct capitalization. Also, per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, please don't use {{done}} and similar templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All these points are done now. ty for pointers. 188.29.90.239 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Also I can add that I have electronic copies of many of the references used if anyone wants copies to check verifiability or whatever. 92.40.94.138 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • General comment. I would urge that all refs in the lede that are not to what is considered to be contentious text (probably all) be deleted, as long as corresponding text and refs appear in the body. Also, I would urge that unless there is a good reason, the refs that are mid-sentence be moved to the ends of their respective sentences. Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cal Ripken, Jr.[edit]

Nominator(s): Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Cal Ripken, Jr., Hall of Fame baseball player for the Baltimore Orioles. No major issues came up in the last FA review, so I am hoping there is enough input this time to get it to featured status. If you find problems with it, please check back periodically to see how I have corrected them. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No major issues came up!?! Two editors opposed the article for failing the well-researched criteria because the majority of the biographical information in the article is based on a single book written before the subject's career had even ended. No featured article should have ninety-two of its first ninety-six citations coming from a single source. No work has been done to address this issue since the last nomination; in fact it looks like no work has been done by the nominator at all since that nomination. I am confused as to why the nominator appears to be attempting to engage in some form of subterfuge. Indrian (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem in the use of the book as the main source for the first part of his career. It's a reliable source, and sums that part of his career up fine. There isn't any more recent book on him. If that's your only reason for opposing than I have to question it. The other oppose in the FAC does hit on the same points I saw on a skim, and those concerns still need to be addressed though. Wizardman 02:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Cal Ripken wrote an autobiography (still before the end of his career, unfortunately) that is not referenced here. He was one of the four subject's of George Will's best-selling and well regarded Men at Work, which is not referenced here. He is one of the players featured in the book Baltimore Orioles: Where Have You Gone? Cal Ripken Jr., Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer, and Other Orioles Greats discussing the post-playing careers of prominent Orioles, which is not referenced here. There is a book specifically covering his MVP and World Championship season called Oriole Magic: The O's of 1983 (he wrote the forward) that is not referenced here. There is an oral history called From 33rd Street to Camden Yards : An Oral History of the Baltimore Orioles that includes Ripken and is not referenced here. I am not a scholar of Ripken or the Orioles and have only read some of these books myself, so it could be that not all of them contain useful information, but the point is there are other monographs that discuss aspects of his career, and I am not even getting into newspaper and magazine profiles that have undoubtedly appeared over the years as well. By viewing the majority of Ripken's career through the lens of a single author, this article risks inheriting any biases of said author by not surveying a larger swath of the relevant literature, which is not limited to the narrow realm of "full-length biographies of Cal Ripken, Jr." Unless the nominator can demonstrate that these other sources precisely duplicate all of the relevant information on his career found in the single book he has chosen to cite to, then he cannot claim to have satisfied the well-researched criteria of FAC. Indrian (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to referencing more sources for the early part of Ripken's career; in fact, I would have, if that had been in the Featured Article criteria. But, it is not. In fact, if you take a look at Rogers Hornsby and J. R. Richard (related precedents), you will notice that they mainly use a single source for their careers. Hornsby relies heavily on the same book, and Richard relies heavily on Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, both statistical sites. You do bring up the valid point that, by using the Rosenfeld book so heavily, I may have missed aspects of his career. That is true... in a way. However, this is an encyclopedia article, not a book. This article should just cover the main points of his career; it can't cover every single-game performance or minor detail relating to Ripken . Books may differ in specifics of Ripken's career, but all biographies will cover all the general information an encyclopedia article requires. There is nothing notable enough for an encyclopedia article that would not be found in a biography, including Rosenfeld's. And if there were anything important not mentioned in the Rosenfeld book, I would have found it in at least one of the articles I looked at while writing this article.
In addition, I don't have access to many of the books you list, except the autobiography, which I avoided because it is a primary source that should be assumed to be biased towards Ripken. (Also, Baltimore Orioles: Where Have You Gone? Cal Ripken Jr., Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer, and Other Orioles Greats would not have helped with the pre-1995 part of Ripken's career, which is what you are concerned about.) However, in order to address your concerns, I did manage to find SABR bio and Britannica bio. The Britannica bio contributed nothing new from Ripken's pre-1995 career, and the SABR article contained only about two facts not mentioned by Rosenfeld which were relevant enough for the article (Drago and the ASGMVP-HR Derby significance, both of which I have added). If you can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that other sources contain information about Ripken's early life which should be mentioned, I will add it. But, based on Richard, Hornsby, and the FA criteria, this article cites enough sources about his early life to be promoted. In addition, correct me if wrong, but you were the only editor to raise this as a concern in the last nomination. User:Neutralhomer supported it (based on references, by the way), and User:maclean just wanted some articles and books to be mentioned, which I did. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I also made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball for editors who are knowledgable about Ripken to check and see if anything important is not mentioned in the early part of the article. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that we need to be careful about using autobiographies because of the potential for bias, but they can be helpful for early life information and providing a player's own viewpoints on events. Regarding the Hornsby article, it should be noted that it has more than one book source, unlike this one; the major biography of him is heavily used, but there is more sourcing diversity there. Richard doesn't have a biography that I can find, but there are several books and articles that at least show that multiple perspectives were considered. You'd be amazed what any given source can leave out. I just finished substantial work on a broad baseball article, and I'm glad that I had multiple major books on the subject on hand because each one offered something that proved valuable. The book you are using is a great source, but Indrian is right in saying that we need more evidence that the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" per FA criterion 1c. Even a simple Google Books search of the books listed above should allow you to reduce the massive weight being placed on the one book, and perhaps discover new material that would be worthwhile to include. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Indrian and Giants2008 re criterion 1c. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a Google Books search and posted all the relevant information I could find. If this article still needs additional sourcing to reach featured status, tell me, and I will see if I can find any newspaper articles too. I can get Ripken's autobiography, but that would probably take a week because I would have to put it on hold at the library. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e was the J-Pop boom of the 19th century. Of course, it was many other things before the West got around to "discovering" it, as you'll see when you read through this artistic genre's 200+ years of history. Thanks in advance to the image reviewer, as there are about sixty images to go through—and I'm wide open to suggestions for replacement or addition. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't need quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
  • FN42, 50, 70, 76, etc: page formatting - check usage of "p." vs "pp."
  • Tuttle Publishing or just Tuttle?
    • Actually, it appears it was Charles E. Tuttle Company until 1996. Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments by Johnbod
  • Generally excellent, and very welcome. I wish say Indian art had as many strong articles as Japanese. I've commented on it at various times over the years, and during Curly's epic expansion. A few cavils:
  • "the nativist Yamato-e tradition, which focused on Japanese themes painted in soft colours and contours" - the bit I've italicized raised the eyebrows. I don't think it's a very useful way to distinguish Yamato-e from Chinese styles, and often just not true. The colours of very old works have often faded, but that is a different matter. Soft colours and blurred contours are arguably just as characteristic of the Chinese styles, when they use colour at all.
    • Hmmm..."soft colours and contours" wasn't really meant as a contrast with the Chinese styles—rather simply as characteristics of the Yamato-e style—but I guess it comes across that way the way I wrote it. And I guess I failed completely in conveying the diversity of Chinese-inspired styles. Let me think of a rewording. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you think "Chinese-inspired ones of a variety of styles" is sufficient? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That's ok, but I really can't see "soft colours and contours" as a useful characterizion of Yamato-e. It often shows selective colouring and views obscured by the mist or revealed by cut-away, but "soft" doesn't work for me. There are often strong colour highlights that Chinese artists would think inharmonious. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I botched summarizing the source: "gorgeous coloring and softness of contour". Would "rich" or "lavish colours" and "soft contours" work? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Makes more sense, though personally I'm still dubious about "soft contours". Just quote it? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Reading around (such as here), it looks like both styles went through more evolution than can really be neatly summed up here. How about: "the nativist Yamato-e tradition, focusing on Japanese themes, best known by the works of the Tosa school; and Chinese-inspired kara-e in a variety of styles, such as the monochromatic ink wash painting of Sesshū Tōyō and his disciples"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • Fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Until the 16th century, the lives of the common people had not been subject to the painters, and even when they were included,..." and the picture caption "is one of the earliest Japanese paintings to feature the lives of the common people.". In the first the phrasing is odd - was it meant to be "the lives of the common people had not been a subject for painters" which is better, though "a main subject" would be better, as works like the 12th-century Shigisan-engi are famous precisely for showing "the lives of the common people", but serving a Buddhist narrative story. Compared to other major traditions, Japanese painting was rather strong on "the lives of the common people" well before this date, but not as a subject in itself. This distinction should be made.
  • "their improved lot allowed for leisure that many sought in the pleasure districts—in particular Yoshiwara" - needs locating in Edo, which will clarify it is a place not a person.
  • "Moronobu was the first of the book illustrators to achieve such prominence that, by 1672, he could sign his name to his work" - bit oddly phrased. Presumably he did so because it brought marketing advantage, but nothing was stopping any artist from doing so, I'd imagine.
    • I'll have to grab the book from the library, but I think it had something to do with Moronobu's superiors granting him the right to sign his work. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok, that would make sense in European terms under the guild system too. Maybe fill it out a bit to avoid the question. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Nope, I was wrong—it reads: "In 1672, with the publication of The Samurai Hundred-poem Collection (Buke hyakunin isshu), he became the first Edo illustrator to achieve such prominence as to be able to sign his own work." I've reworded. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Early ukiyo-e masters" mini-gallery is a mix of paintings & prints. Clarify which is which.
  • I rephrased re Sharaku's identity [4].
    • One thing about this: "artist who worked under the name" could be applied to pretty much every one of the artists, as using an art name was standard, and it was common for artists to change their art names—Hokusai used about a hundred different art names. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, and it would be worth mentioning that before this point. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • More later. I can see my main issue is going to be one I think I've raised before - the paucity of information on the social and economic context for the buyers especially. How expensive were they? "prices affordable to prosperous townspeople" are mentioned, but that's pretty vague. How were they collected and displayed? Were they hung up on walls, or kept in albums, or both? Did enthusiasts have huge collections? Was there a critical literature while the tradition existed? Did other artists or critics look down on them? Was there a 2nd-hand trade? Were there collector's marks? Did you make a lot of money as an artist? Were the more erotic subjects regarded as suitable for public/mixed-gender display? Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit on this last one, and am hunting down some more. As for the "critical literature", that's a definite no—there was almost no literature at all, and what there was came late—the most significant being the Ukiyo-e Ruikō collection of artist histories, which first appeared in 1790 and was never printed under the modern era, copied by hand and modified extensively copy to copy. It has never be translated into English, but it gets mentioned here and there. I'll find a good source on it and add something. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think I've dealt with the "critical literature", pricing, and acceptability of shunga issues. I'm still hunting down collecting habits and incomes; I've found a source that emphasizes the changing economic conditions throughout the era had an effect on the ways ukiyo-e were produced, but it's not very specific, so I'm going to keep hunting for more on that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I see what you mean. On a quick prowl through JSTOR there is a ton on early Western collectors, but little on Japanese ones. Can you see "Hokusai's Illustrations for the "100 Poems"", Roger Keyes and Hokusai, Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, Vol. 10, The Art Institute of Chicago Centennial Lectures (1983), pp. 310-329, Published by: The Art Institute of Chicago, Article DOI: 10.2307/4104343, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4104343. First few pages cover the economic crisis of the 1830s which I've read about elsewhere, and probably deserves mention. Also: "The Prints of Isoda Koryūsai: Floating World Culture and Its Consumers in Eighteenth-Century Japan" by Allen Hockley, Review by: Christine M. E. Guth, Artibus Asiae, Vol. 64, No. 1 (2004), pp. 125-127, Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250160 - suggests that would be a good book on this. supposedly there is "a revolution in ukiyo-e studies" going on (or was in 2004), bringing this stuff more to the fore. Also: "The Commercial and Cultural Climate of Japanese Printmaking" by Amy Reigle Newland, Review by: Lawrence E. Marceau, Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 2006), pp. 494-498, Published by: The Society for Japanese Studies, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064670 - conference papers. This suggests the key books then were Chibbett 1997 The history of Japanese printing and book illustration (Kodansha) and Hillier 1987 "The Art of the Japanese book" (Sotheby's). I can supply PDF's if needed. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually added Hockley's book just today. I don't currently have JSTOR access---I'd love to get any of those PDFs. There definitely seems to be a lot more activity in ukiyo-e scholarship in the last decade, but I haven't come across anything summing it up and contextualizing it. Most of it seems too domain-specific for the general ukiyo-e article (like, say, a book analyzing Harunobu's mitate-e that I was browsing through at the library the other day---and lots of stuff on shunga, shunga, shunga). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do believe I've showed you WP:RX before, right? And yes, a TFA on shunga would be... interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I've actually made quite a bit if use of it. The problem sometimes is not knowing there's something you need if you can't browse through the content. Hopefully I'll be one of those who's granted a JSTOR account so I can browse more freely. A shunga article would be something I could handle (a shelffull of sources at the library), but I do must of my editing where that would be awkward...
I've found an interesting book, but a couple of key pages are inaccessible. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The more I read about pricing, the more I feel like I want to rip out what I've already added. I'm reading Ukiyo-e by Jun'ichi Ôkubo (2008) at the moment, and he has a short section that looks at prices. It appears that "typical" prices varied quite widely, and it doesn't appear the supposedly "typical" 20 mon of the early 19th centruy was really all that typical. The records are so scanty, it seems, that analyzing them seems to be as much speculation as anything. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I think I've dealt with most of your concerns in one way or another. I guess the biggest gap is in how they were collected, and how much artists made. For incomes, I've come across a few tidbits about Hokusai (always broke), Hiroshige (always struggled, but made more than he would've as a firefighter), and Kunichika (apparently made 100 sen for a particular triptych in the 1870s), but I'm turning up blanks for anything general enough to work into the article ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just ran across a book—Ukiyo-e Shuppan-ron by Ôkubo Jun'ichi—that deals with the production and comerical aspects of ukiyo-e, and it was published in 2013. It looks like it spends a lot of time examing in detail what little hard evidence there is, and still looks like it doesn't have hard answers to a lot of these questions, but I've found a couple of things in it that could be used to refine what's in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for acting promptly. I won't be able to work through these, and check the rest of the article, until the w/e I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - you might add Les Nabis as another group of Post Impressionists influenced by Ukiyo-e; although you do mention Bonnard and Vuillard...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded it to mention they were members of the group. Thanks! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Night of January 16th[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a theatrical courtroom drama that allows audience participation in the outcome. It was the first commercial success for a young writer, Ayn Rand, and the last big hit for an aging producer, Al Woods. Actress Doris Nolan, then just a teenager, made her Broadway debut in this play; her veteran castmate Edmund Breese died just after the end of the run. Since achieving GA status in February, the article has been expanded with more content and more sources. I have judged it worthy to be my first FAC nomination, and I hope a jury of my peers will reach consensus in its favor. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:NightOfJanuary16th.JPG needs a more expansive FUR
  • File:E.E._Clive_in_The_Little_Princess.jpg: link to support licensing is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to review these. I've updated the FUR for the cover image, and replaced the dead link on the Clive image with an archive link. Let me know if you see anything else I should fix. --RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Subway Sadie[edit]

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a lost film from 1926 about a subway guard and a fur salesgirl. I've exhausted all usable sources to create a comprehensive article and the prose has been buffed up since the GA nomination passed. It's not the longest article, but I think it meets the criteria regardless. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review (complete)
  • File:Subway Sadie poster.jpg - I'd say there's a 99% chance that this is PD (most studios didn't start regularly putting copyright notices on their posters until the 1930s). Do you have access to a higher resolution scan for us to check?
  • Here's a slightly higher one. All text seems legible, doesn't look like there's a copyright notice. I'm not a copyright wizard; would this make it PD?
  • The copyright text is usually very small, so I would say not yet. We'd have to hunt down if there were any renewals 28 years after publication. My internet is fritzing out on me, so I can't check it right now. We hope is usually pretty good with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 and Taylor Trescott--didn't find a larger one. Sadie was renewed; I agree that the poster probably has no copyright marks on it, but how about a compromise--changing this for a nice, big lobby card with no copyright marks? If you guys give me a few minutes, I think I can also get some more photos of the folks in the film and a photo of a theater marquee showing the film through Lantern. We hope (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The lobby card looks free. We should be using that then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Give me a minute to get it to Commons.:) We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Great. I'm uploading a higher resolution of the MacKaill image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK--File:Subway Sadie lobby card 1926.jpg here it is. Did either of you see these photos in Motion Picture News for 1926? We hope (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No, I've been limiting myself to images used in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
  • Here is an alternate one. I reuploaded it using this source because the blue tint was unsightly and it was a larger resolution.
  • Better, but this has a copyright tag (title page). Was this renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK-Stars of the Photoplay was not renewed. I checked books and periodicals for 1951 and 1952. The only renewals for Photoplay were in 1951-for a couple of stories in back issues. We hope (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That means we're nice and safe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Subway Sadie promo still.png - Why, exactly, is this PD? Was there no copyright notice on the back? How can you confirm that when the back wasn't included in the ebay ad? Yes, most promotional stills were not copyrighted, but Wikipedia has required actual proof (i.e. the backs) for several years now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Swapped out for a new still which I can confirm is PD.
  • File:Subway Sadie film still Picture-Play.png needs categories, and the date should be fixed (speaking of that, make sure all of the dates are the correct ones for your other files). For display on Wikipedia, a jpg format is best (the software sharpens the thumbnails, making them clearer), but I can do that myself if you are pressed for time. But a bigger problem: there is a clear copyright notice on the bottom of the table of contents (here). Do you have proof this wasn't renewed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this Crisco. I'm a bit hurried for time, but I think I addressed these properly. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Prose comments
Al Rockett - Per WP:REDLINK, biographies should generally not be redlinked
Couldn't find a redlink for Rockett. There was one for Hugh Bennett and I took it out. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Randall portraying Brown - who's Brown?
IDK. The sources with a plot don't give the names of any of the other characters. Want me to nuke it? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
running for 70 minutes. - at how many FPS? If I remember correctly, silent films could be shown at several speeds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
With 35mm film, 1 minute is usually projected with 90 feet being one minute. Changed to "around 70 minutes". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Good work on another lost film article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN8: title formatting, page number?
  • FN2, 20: article title? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the help. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

After I saw this article a few months back, I realized that it needed quite a bit of work. I created a user sandbox page and wrote a draft, which was peer reviewed by three users. I later published the article on the mainspace and submitted it as a Good Article candidate, which it passed. I'd hope you can help make the article even better - I believe there's always room for improvement. --ɱ (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is BMFD?
  • Why are you limiting many images to such a small size?
  • File:BriarcliffTrophy.tif, File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg: when/where were these first published?
  • File:BriarcliffManorPolice.jpg, File:HillsideBriarcliff.jpg: is there a more specific licensing tag?
  • File:SaturdayNightLiveBriarcliff.png needs a stronger FUR
  • File:BriarcliffSealOld.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, you raise all good points. I talk about the BMFD earlier, so I didn't think it needed to be linked or explained. Many of the images are small to not mis-align section headings, although some could be bigger. The Briarcliff Trophy and Walter Law images date to 1908 and 1910. The trophy picture was in a Briarcliff Outlook publication; I'll try to find the exact one. The Law photo was dated to 1910 and I know it's in a 1939 publication, and probably is in earlier ones. I'll look for it. The SNL image I think qualifies well for identification and critical commentary, how would you change its rationale? The seal was vectorized from a scan of an introductory page (not numbered) of Briarcliff's 1977 history. I'll detail that. Again, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I linked the BMFD and made one image bigger. Most images are at the default size, all others are either a bit smaller to (as mentioned above) not hit into the next section, or because they're portrait instead of landscape. The Law photo in addition to the Police and Hillside images I scanned directly from the originals, located at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society (BMSHS). The BMSHS only found a permanent home three years ago, and therefore any images people have donated to them are without records as to date taken/photographer/any usage in publications. So I cannot have a more specific license or information.--ɱ (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You should adjust the size of portrait images using the "upright" parameter, as described at WP:IMGSIZE. For the SNL image, the current listed "purpose of use" is "The image shows a scene of Saturday Night Live filmed in Briarcliff Manor" - this is a description of what the image actually is, not an explanation of why it is needed in the article or how it aids understanding. It is also missing an explicit identification of the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I substituted the 'upright' bit for all the portrait images, except for the ones in the 'notable people' section because it looks too prominent and people might think it gives undue weight to them. I also changed the FUR for the SNL image. Is that up to par?--ɱ (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I updated the File:BriarcliffTrophy.tif, and I changed the license on File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg. Does this all suffice?--ɱ (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Crisco, care to weigh in? I'm still not sure the image is needed to "to illustrate that Briarcliff Manor was the setting for this comedy skit".
By the way, image issues aside, I would encourage you to check your reference formatting before someone comes through to do a source review - I spotted several inconsistencies on only a quick glance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it over again now. Could've sworn I got everything, but with this many refs it's hard to be sure... Also, the fact that this small village was in the very first episode of SNL is something that many people doubted until I showed them a clip of the episode; that's why I thought it was important to have the image: verification and illustration of that.--ɱ (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I fixed some references; please tell me if there's anything else that stands out. Also, you should perhaps fix the link to Crisco1492's page, you forgot to add the "User:" bit. Thanks for your comments so far.--ɱ (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Argh, you're right, thanks. I don't intend to do a full source review right at this moment, but a few quick points: book refs almost always need page numbers, unless you're actually citing the whole book, and some of them are missing; ditto periodicals without weblinks. More broadly, similar types of sources should generally look the same: for example, we see that the newspaper in FN19 includes a publisher while the newspaper in FN61 doesn't, so pick one option and apply it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

() Okay. Book numbers are often problematic with history and place articles because sources may have information on introductory pages that aren't numbered, and ebook page numbers often don't match up with print ones. As well, a few books I used are so short that they don't have page numbers. Some books, like The Changing Landscape I cite so many times that it would be best for one to just use the book's TOC or index, rather than making this long article longer with a 'notes' section for individual pages, which would be mostly for this one book anyway. And some paragraphs, like that on 'higher education', I wrote entirely using that book as a source, although I may have used four or five different pages. It's neater and easier to just cite the book for that paragraph than have each portion cited, even though it's all from the same source. For those reasons, I think it's really best to just leave it as the status quo.

With regard to periodicals without weblinks - many are print articles that haven't yet been digitized. The village historical society has archives of news articles that aren't on the Web but still easily count as verifiable. With regard to consistency, I tried to be consistent with formatting and dates, but when it comes to the amount of information, it just varies too much. Some sources have no date, some have no URL, some have no publisher, some have no author, etc.--ɱ (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I added page numbers for the largest source of this article, the above-mentioned Changing Landscape. My copies of the 1939 and 1952 histories have no page numbers, although the BMSHS ones might; I'll look into that, as well as finding if the 1977 history has them.--ɱ (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jean Bellette[edit]

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an Australian modernist painter, whose unorthodox choice of subject (classical Greek myth) at a time when critical nationalism was in full swing in art both won her acclaim (two wins in the Sulman Prize) but also nonplussed critics in the long run. To anticipate one query - why so little about the decades of her work after she went to Majorca in 1957 - the answer is: because no-one writes about them. I don't understand why, either. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

  • Please correct CS1 problems:
    • invalid date contents such as "purchased 1954" (three occurrences, see Category:CS1 errors: dates)
      • I have changed two of the three cases. With respect to the third, this has a history. During the FAC process for Florence Fuller, Nikkimaria and I had a discussion about what to do with the citation of works of art in gallery collection databases, when referencing the fact of the gallery's ownership. She correctly pointed out that the date to include is the acquisition date, not the date at which the work was painted. That is the reason for the use of this language. I realise it produces a CS1 error, but my concern is the accurate citation, not whether the code likes it. If however you can suggest a way to include the date that works around this, i'd be happy to know, as it would be great to not get those error messages.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • deprecated parameters (|year=2012 |month=June) in Klepac, Lou (June 2012) cite (use |date=, see Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters)
      • Done. This is a bit frustrating, since the parameter names came from a WP template in the edit options bar...hamiltonstone (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • use |first= |last= consistently (instead of sometimes |author=Klepac, Lou or whatever too)
  • Non-free images: I can see why you want them, but unless things have changed they are not allowed in an FA (someone please comment if this is no longer the case)
    Chiming in to say that non-free images are most definitely allowed in FAs as long as the rationale is strong enough. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Early life and training: "She subsequently was" -> "She was subsequently"
  • Career: "about some of whom Bellette published writings": "... published articles" would read better (unless the contributions cannot be regarded as articles of course)

-- Mirokado (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks.

  • Please add alt text to the images. The alt text is for vision-impaired readers and describes what we can see in the picture.
  • Max Dupain took a photo of Bellette in 1936 which is I think in the public domain in Australia since taken before 1955, thus probably in the U.S. too. You would need to contact the National Library of Australia. If this or a similar picture can be used, we should probably use it.
  • I've ruled that one out, because Max Dupain is a recognised artist and as such that photograph would be treated as a work of art, not as a regular snap - as such, its copyright depends on the death date of the artist, not on the fact that it was taken before 1955. I believe Commons is mistaken in hosting at least one photograph by him. However, i'm not an expert; if there has been a discussion on WP or commons that concluded that all photographs are covered by the pre-1955 rule, regardless of their maker / artistic quality, then i would change my view.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the date issue... Neither that nor the answers to the following open questions are likely to stop me supporting this well-written article:

  • Can the Retrospective in 2004–2005 be a source of more information than is currently used? Should it be mentioned as as significant milestone in its own right?
      • I have used the publication associated with that as an extensive source now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The S H Ervin Gallery Exhibition Calendar 2005 says "This comprehensive retrospective offers the first opportunity to re-assess and celebrate the remarkable life and career of Jean Bellette. The exhibition explores her expressions of neo-classicism, still life and drawings from the 1930s, 40s & 50s, through to her work as an expatriate artist in Majorca from 1958 until her death there in 1991." That is of course advertising blurb, but perhaps the exhibition catalogue has background articles.
  • Amanda Lawson in "A Speculative Venture: Contemporary Art, History and Hill End" says: "If the concept of national identity associated with the bush myth was notorious for its exclusion of women, Indigenous people and urban/suburban life, the artistic traditions that came to be identified with Hill End were equally exclusive: painting was the medium that counted, landscape the subject of choice. A female artist such as Jean Bellette (1909-1991), for example, although a member of the Hill End Group, only achieved significant recognition through a retrospective exhibition in 2004; her interest in classicism sits uneasily with the populist focus of 'vernacular modernism' (Wilson 21-24)."
    • This asserts the significance of that exhibition.
    • It mentions her gender. Is there any widespread suggestion that this, as well as her choice of subject matter, was an issue?
      • I have picked up at least one source in this, in my latest revisions.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "The Hill End Group" is not mentioned in our article by name as "a Group". Should it be?

--Mirokado (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will work on your (and Ceoil's) comments over coming days).hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response. I'll have another look through the article over the weekend since you have added quite a lot of material, but I imagine anything I notice would be minor now: alt text is still needed for the images. Changing to support. --Mirokado (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've now looked through the article again. It is a good read.

  • lead: "Married to artist and critic Paul Haefliger, the couple moved to Majorca in 1957. Though she visited and exhibited in Australia thereafter, she did not return to live, and became peripheral to the Australian art scene." There is a transfer of subject from Jean to the couple and the sentence links the two events too closely – they were married in 1935. How about: "Bellette married artist and critic Paul Haefliger in 1935. The couple moved to Majorca in 1957: although she visited and exhibited in Australia thereafter, she did not return to live, and became peripheral to the Australian art scene."
  • refs and citations:
    • there are three unresolved callouts to French 2004 and one to French 2005. It can be difficult to spot these without mechanical help. so I suggest you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. I guess these are to the France 2004 gallery catalogue (in case anyone else spot-checks WorldCat, you correctly refer to Christine France even though some listings say Christine Francis), but there are a couple of other problems which would also need to be sorted out
    • French 2004 p. 2, the page range does not match any of the citations
      • I couldn't work out how to cite the inside cover page without creating another cite to the same book. But i've done that now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • France 2004 citation has the same chapter title as Hall 2004 – I guess there is a copy-paste error
    • Grishin 2013, WorldCat says 2014 for both visible editions, please check
      • I have the book, and it has 2013 printed on the title page.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

-- Mirokado (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have made a couple of further changes to the bibliography, it was simpler to do it than to describe what I felt was necessary. I see no further issues so I wish you happy editing. --Mirokado (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Non-free images are allowed in FAs; however, the "n.a." parameters should be filled in for the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment The article as written is very good, and the prose are great; to the point, elegant and clear. But I get no sence of her as an artist, what/whom she was influenced by, what she was interested in, which formats, colour ranges, subject matter, etc she used. This is esentially a bio timeline, which in most painter's articles would be the first half of the page. I realise this is difficult with more modern painters, but I would be delighted to see a "works" or "style" section. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note, I am leaning support here; and it may just be a matter off adding quotes from reviews, and consolidating material already on the page. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil. I've added some material, but need to try and get to one particular reference work to which i've not had access. There's also a 1946 review i haven't had the chance to quote. I'll have to think some more about reorganising the text to create a specific section on her works or style.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm very pleased to see these additions. Otherwise, Ive gone through this article in detail, with minor c/es, and am overall impressed by both editor and artist. But...continue! Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll be busy this week, but can you ping me on my talk when you want me to revist re the expansion. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Just an update to say that this has now been added, and there is just one more source I'd like to check, though i don't know when i will get access to it.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've found everything, I think. These are the final changes. Thank you Ceoil, let me know what you think.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
(Note to delegates, though i expect you already know - Ceoil appears to have retired to County Antrim...which sounds lovely.) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

An interesting article. You're an old hand at this, so just a few quibbles before I support. I'm a Brit, so ignore comments where Oz usage differs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd link "Hobart"
  • She regularly painted scenes—I wonder if you mean "frequently"?
  • Displaying works in the 1934 student art exhibition, her drawings and watercolours attracted favourable comment—ungrammatical, I think ; Her drawings and watercolours displayed in the 1934 student art exhibition attracted favourable comment
  • about some of whom Bellette published articles in the journal Art in Australia.—clunky, perhaps some of whom Bellette wrote articles about in the journal...
  • caryatids—footnote after ref explaining this obscure word?
  • black and white—in BE this should be hyphenated
  • but reconciled—in BE, I'd add "were"
  • that reflected a Spanish influence—Is this actually what the source says? Majorca has quite a distinctive culture, and the language is closer to Catalan than Spanish
  • rise of abstract expressionism, strong influence of a small number of gallery owners—I'd put "the" before "strong"
  • I prefer Australian regions to be spelt out, but it needs to be consistent (you have a mix of spelt-out and abbreviations)
  • It seems odd to abbreviate "'Victoria" while spelling out the longer New South Wales, and even odder to have two variants of capitalisation for the shortened form.

The Whistleblower[edit]

Nominator(s): 1ST7 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Whistleblower is a 2010 thriller film about human trafficking in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is based on the account of Nebraska police officer Kathryn Bolkovac, who worked as a peacekeeper in the region during the late 1990s and discovered a sex trafficking ring being facilitated by international peacekeeping personnel. The article was promoted to GA status in October 2013 and underwent a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors in December. I believe it meets the requirements for FA status and nominated it a few months ago, but the nomination stalled after receiving two support votes. I'm hoping that it will receive more reviews this time around and would greatly appreciate any comments. 1ST7 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I supported this article's promotion the last time around, but I've come to see some details that need to be fixed so I won't support just yet.
  • The opening line should read something like: The Whistleblower is a 2010 Canadian-German thriller film..."
  • The film's budget should get a mention somewhere.
  • How did the media in the Balkans respond to the film? This should be mentioned in the "Reviews" section.

Other than that, it still looks good to me. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I've altered the opening line and added some information about the film's reception in the Balkans. However, I haven't been able to find the exact film budget anywhere, just several articles saying that it was low. According to this link, the budget is unknown, and I remember having read one article that mentioned it never being disclosed. --1ST7 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I think I'll support now. 23 editor (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Comments from Corvoe[edit]

Hello there, 1ST7! Happy to start reviewing this, I'll get through as much as I can now and wrap it up later tonight or tomorrow. I'll go section by section with a fine tooth comb. I'll also make a handful of copy-editing changes.

Lead
  • I actually have to start off by refuting one of 23 editor's comments. According to WP:FILMLEAD, "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I've gone ahead and made this change. Sorry 23 editor, I don't mean to offend if I have.
  • Not a fan of the parentheses in the lead. I feel like "attempting to shut down" would be sufficient, and less visually distracting.
  • Specific dates for the TIFF premiere and theatrical release would be nice. Also, mentioning the US release in the lead is pretty irrelevant, since the US had nothing to do with the production of this film (see WP:FILMRELEASE)
  • "The Whistleblower received several awards and nominations, including the 2012 Genie Awards." Did it receive several nominations at the Genie Awards, or was it nominated for the Genie Award?
Plot
  • "(entitled "Do not read this if you have a weak stomach or a guilty conscience")" is definitely weird, and seems unnecessary.
  • Link BBC. A lot of non-British people don't know it. Also, which branch? I'm assuming BBC News, so I'd specify that.
Production
  • "which served (and was protected by) other peacekeepers." I can't think of another way to word this, but it feels weird.
  • Photo of Madeleine Rees shouldn't be so wide. I'd crop it down slightly, so it's upright.
  • "she resolved to adapt the story for the screen; however, "I love documentaries, but I wouldn't even know how to make one." This feels awkward and kind of unrelated. I could be wrong.
  • "The Whistleblower is a Canadian–German co-production (Kondracki is Canadian)". Why does it matter that she's Canadian? Her nationality has nothing to do with the countries of production (see The Grand Budapest Hotel).
  • Filming section's quotes are formatted really strangely, they don't look like they're quotes (not the one from Bolkovac, the two in-text quotes).
Themes
  • Photos at the beginning of a section shouldn't be on the left, it makes the reader have to search for the starting text.
Reception
  • I've gone ahead and made some changes that I personally think adds to it. Feel free to revert these changes. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed "R rating" note, as it's rating was never a point of relevance.

All in all, when these are all acknowledged, I'd be more than happy to support this.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I believe I have addressed all but two things: first, I have not altered the photo of Madeleine Rees because I don't know how to crop images; second, I am uncertain about changing the quote boxes, as another reviewer (from the last FA nomination) told me that they should be formatted that way due to the length of the quotes. --1ST7 (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The quote boxes were fine, I was referring to the in-text ones. I feel like there's a better way, but I can't think of one so I won't penalize you. Also, I cropped the image and added it in. Lastly, you have my... Corvoe (speak to me) 04:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. This article is extremely well-written, well-sourced, and all-inclusive. It contains a large amount of information about the topic, all presented with quality illustrations and excellent prose. This is one of the best film articles I've encountered, no doubt. Congratulations to 1ST7 for this outstanding work. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Nikki, could you do a source review as well when you have time? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as McGuigan's role, do not appear to be sourced
  • Double-check italicization - for example, NPR should not typically be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

1987 Giro d'Italia[edit]

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've put in some considerable labor into the article to bring it from what it was ([5]). I recently got the 1988 Giro d'Italia promoted to FA status and have made the changes and additions requested to that article to this one (expanded the route and stages sections, added an aftermath section, and a little more on pre race favorites). I also did a copy edit of the race overview, which I believe got most of the prose errors out of the way. I will respond back to any comments very quickly. Thanks!

Also, I have perused the internet databases in search of information on doping controls and cases at the 1987 giro and have not found anything; so that is why there is nothing about doping in the article. I haven't found a source that claims there weren't doping cases either...

Canis Major[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to work up bigger constellations without the prose coming across as too listy - this article came together quite well I thought. Home of the brightest star in the sky and a bunch of interesting things. Have a read, tell me what I can fix and enjoy (hopefully) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

First, the image review. File:Canis Major IAU.svg comes from a site with an appropiate license, but it still contains a pair of logos at the bottom right. Their copyright section clearly said that their logo is not freely licensed, and so it must be removed from the image (watermarks are usually removed anyway). Besides, it may be better if the "source" was not just a raw link that simply reads "[1]". File:CMa setting.jpg has a "summary" section that repeats the content of the description, remove it. And what about removing the lower portion of the photo, so that we see just the sky and not the portion of the plane's window? (there's also the plane wing, but I don't think we can do anything about that). File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Canis Major, Lepus, Columba Noachi & Cela Sculptoris.jpg is a featured image, and I don't see any problem with it. File:CanisMajorCC.jpg comes from a site with a copyright notice, but the author uses the same name both there and in Commons. Perhaps you should send a mail to the author (in his page) to ask him to confirm that the user in Commons is also him, and that he's aware that he's re-licensing the photos by uploading them here. File:Stars fleeing a cosmic crash.jpg seems fine --Cambalachero (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed duplicate material. I would think leaving some reference point is good, depends what one sees as the interesting part of the image. If you crop it so it is just sky, then it is just a blurry picture of the constellation. Actually the more i think about it, it really doesn't add to the article except in an amusing and possibly noncyclopedic manner, so I will remove it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Would the logo not be part of attribution? This is the copyright notice on the original site, and this is (presumably) the version they are happy with being reproduced, given it is on the website....all 88 constellations have this image.....will redo the source source rewritten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 25 June 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, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comments from Jim Usual high quality, Cas, just a couple of minor points you might take a look at Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • KAK.SI.DI, BAN, MULAPIN— Why are the Babylonian words fully capped? I can hardly bring myself to write this, but is it consistent with MoS for capitalisation?
it's consensus on how the words are transcribed from Babylonian. We discussed this somewhere before - can't recall where. Will have a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternate names— too American for my tastes, "alternative" is meant, the names don't alternate
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • beat him up—too informal, even for Oz
changed to "assaulted" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • polygon of 4 sides. — spell out "four", or better still replace the phrase with the equivalent but more concise "quadrilateral". As written, it's like using "polygon of three sides" in preference to "triangle"
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

It reads well, but really I am too unfamiliar with the astronomical depth of the article to be able to comment properly. A few points on the prose:

thanks for the input - making it as accessible as possible to lay-readers is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "In non-western astronomy" - Are Arab astronomers and Tunisian shepherds considered to be "western"?
in a very broad sense, this is part of the classical/western lore yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Wild Cockerel (Yějī 野雞) was at the centre of the Military Market and its stars were uncertain." - needs some clarification of what the second part means.
have tried to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Southeast of the Wolf was the asterism Húshǐ (弧矢), the celestial Bow and Arrow, ..." - This sentence is too long and complex.
split now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "To the Boorong people of Victoria, Sigma Canis Majoris was Unurgunite, and its flanking stars Delta and Epsilon his two wives." - I would add "were" to the last part of this.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You mention that Lepus is "the hare" but not that Columba is "the dove".
tricky this - as Columba only mentioned in map/boundaries but, not mythology - would seem odd to mention it there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sirius is also a binary star; its companion is called Sirius B, which has a magnitude of 8.4" - What is the magnitude of Sirius A then? Perhaps that's a silly question but this paragraph describes Sirius as a star and then states it is in fact two stars.
Sirius B is 10,000 times fainter, the -1.46 magnitude at the beginning is the magnitude of Sirius A to all intents and purposes. I have added the bit to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... is another star that has been classified Beta Cephei variable, ..." - I would insert "as a" in this sentence.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... is now undergoing nuclear fusion of helium to generate energy." - The use of the active rather than the passive tense here makes it sounds as if the star has a purpose!
removed as redundant anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "At the other extreme is ..." - At the other extreme from What?
in size - preceding segment is about one of the largest stars known...to then talk about one 5 km in diameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "However the fainter star is the more massive at 19 Solar masses ..." - "Solar mass" is lowercase elsewhere in the article.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... yellow and orange stars and covers an area the size of the full Moon ..." - Perhaps use the word "apparent size".
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "On the other hand, a globular cluster in Puppis, NGC 2298 ..... and instead be of extragalactic origin." - The verb form is wrong at the end of this sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Snoring rail[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The snoring rail is even more elusive than the invisible rail, so this is a short article because so little is known about it. Gerd Heinrich puts in another appearance though, so that's something to look forward to! Thanks to Crisco for sleeking the plumage before I brought the bird here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review
File:Aramidopsis plateni 1898.jpg - Fine
File:Aramidopsisplatenimap.png - Source for your data doesn't appear to be working
I've replaced the template with a simple link, now seems OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Well written short article. I'll AGF on comprehensiveness, as I am sadly unfamiliar with birding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw your edit, I was lulled into "the Celebes" by the plural-like spelling, so it's stupidity rather than BE (: Thanks for support and you earlier help, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Taxonomy "It is now considered to be more similar to the Inaccessible Island and white-throated rails than to members of the Rallus genus." but the cladogram in this paper

Kirchman, JJ (2012). "Speciation of flightless rails on islands: A DNA-based phylogeny of the typical rails of the pacific". Auk 129: 56–69. doi:10.1525/auk.2011.11096. 

based on sequencing 3 mitochondrial genes suggests that the closest relatives are Lewin's rail (Gallirallus pectoralis/Lewinia pectoralis) and the Slaty-breasted rail (Gallirallus striatus) Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd missed that paper, thanks for that, text updated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple more points

  • "other than a report of an adult seen feeding with two chicks in August 1983,[4] but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting.[17]" This is very confusing. Footnote 12 (Birdbase) also contains "A bird was observed with two chicks in August 1983 (Andrew and Holmes 1990)." This looks as if one author copied from another without going back to the primary source. (Please could you email Andrew and Holmes 1990 to me). If Andrew and Holmes don't mention the sighting, then perhaps the wiki article shouldn't either.
  • I'll send you the article, but the relevant text says C: At c. 08.00 hrs on 18 Aug 1983, one observed with two chicks foraging in lightly disturbed hill forest bordering dense regrowth near Sidaunta on the western boundary of T.N. Lore Lindu, appears to be the first record of breeding of this elusive species (KDB) (see also Lambert, 1989). That's it. No published description to confirm the identity, no description of the chicks, no comment on the record (Lambert 1989 isn't relevant, just his description of calls and sightings of adults Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, I misunderstood "but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting" - I wrongly assumed that the authors had not mentioned the sighting - while in fact they just didn't give "details", as the text correctly states. Looking at your text now, I can't see why I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "estimated population of 3,500–15,000 individuals" I'm amazed that it possible to estimate the population when there have been so few sightings. I had naively assumed that population estimates were based on actual data. I don't think this estimate can be considered reliable. Aa77zz (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If you click on the "full account" tab, the IUCN give their rationale there. The IUCN Red List is a reputable source for conservation matters, and however suspect their estimate might be, I can't not quote it. Similarly, it would be OR for me to criticise the estimate, and I wouldn't know where to look for a better figure. These flightless rails are incredibly difficult to see, and the islands lack the scientific and physical infrastructure needed for an accurate census. Even European volant species like Corn Crake and Spotted Crake are estimated on calling birds, not sight observations. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree that you need to quote the IUCN Red List and that (unfortunately) it would be OR to criticise. Although it is easy to believe that the species is threatened, with so few sightings, the numbers are obviously suspect. Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The article fulfills all the criteria. For your next FAC how about a bird that I'm likely to be able to see.I've been watching a pair of Gobemouche gris (Spotted flycatchers) that have conveniently chosen to build a nest against the wall of a house next to the dining table on the terrace. (gris seems more appropriate than spotted) Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • great article, almost there.
  • In the Description section, it states "Immature and juvenile plumages are undescribed." In Behaviour it says "Rail chicks are typically precocial, downy and black,[16] but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting". I find these three sentences hard to reconcile. If we know the chicks are downy and black, is that a reference only to rails in general rather than those seen in 1983? If so, it is slightly confusing to have the general sentence provided in this context - it made this reader think it was about those chicks seen in 1983.
Point taken, I've removed the general comment that chicks are usually black and downy, and left just what we actually know about this species — nothing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Referencing: there seem to be some books cited in Harvard style, but other books fully cited in the references. Can this be checked for consistency? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm usually very careful on this, but I appear to have completely failed to follow my normal procedure. All print books are now short-form, with journals and web pages in full, my standard FA practice
Thanks for reviewing, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

As you say, a short article on a little known species. A couple of points struck me:

  • "The difficulty of its habitat and sparse distribution means that little is known about this species." - I don't really think you can have a difficult habitat.
  • I'm not totally convinced, but changed to stress inaccessibility anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The rail is trapped for food, and killed by dogs, cats and other introduced predators." - This is more of a criticism of your source than the article, but since the species is so rarely seen, it seems a bold assertion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wondered about the extent of these myself, particularly as the rail seems to be increasingly rare. I've past-tensed the hunting and made the predation less assertive (although I suspect that dogs and cats are much better at finding their dinner than humans) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's better. Now supporting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is another article I'd like to run on a major centenary this year (8 Dec. 2014, the centenary of her loss at the Battle of the Falkland Islands). I wrote this article in its earlier form about 5 years ago, before significantly overhauling it a little while ago. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few weeks ago (see here). Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Be consistent in whether you use "First World War" or "World War I"
  • File:The_German_far_eastern_squadron_in_Kiau-Chau_Bay.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Development of Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (tc) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The development of Grand Theft Auto V was one of gaming's biggest undertakings. Developer Rockstar North are based in Edinburgh, but they've always done American cities justice. Making GTA V's open world required visits to California, with photo and video footage documenting the journey. An entire score was written. All of the main parts were mo-capped. This article covers all bases, thanks to the developer's many interviews with journalists. I feel it's written well enough to be up to scratch with other featured articles. CR4ZE (tc) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from URDNEXT[edit]

  • Support! I love Grand Theft Auto and I was wow'd by how well it's written. It has more info then any other website on the subject. URDNEXT (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

  • I will be leaving comments here within the next week or two. Sound good? Snuggums (talkcontributions) 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't wait. You were a big help with the main article's FAC, too. CR4ZE (tc) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It was my pleasure helping you get GTA V itself to FA :). Now for the commentary on this.....
  • Give a time range in the lead for when the development began
  • "published by Rockstar Games"..... released
  • "its release was widely anticipated"..... something about this just doesn't feel right. I'm not doubting its factual accuracy, but it seems either misplaced or poorly phrased.
  • "sources allegedly close to the developer"..... how about giving the names of these "sources"?
  • "first acknowledged the existence of"..... maybe first confirmed would be better
  • "did not meet its original projected release date"..... here you should include what date this was scheduled for
  • "Early in Grand Theft Auto V's development" → "Early in the game's development"
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref should not be used more than once in a row per paragraph (i.e. don't use ref#90 more than once in a paragraph without uses of other refs in between the uses of ref#90)
  • Metro is not a reliable source
  • When using multiple articles from a common source (i.e. multiple IGN refs), only link the work in the first ref used from the common source
  • "Buzzfeed" is not a reliable source
  • The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized
  • Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ' (check the refs for this)
  • Do not use stylizations
There's my 2¢. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 06:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I've taken care of everything above. Some feedback—the development timeframe is murky territory. I'm seeing sources that say four years (putting it at 2009-13), but others say immediately following GTA IV (2008-13). BuzzFeed are direct interviews with key people involved in the game, and the facts being cited are coming out of their mouths, not the journalists'. Hollywood Reporter was, but it was using the wrong field. Couldn't pick up quote mark violations, can you point them out? Stylisations pertaining to what? Cheers, keep the comments coming. CR4ZE (tc) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. I've taken another look through the article and it seems to all have been taken care of. I was referring to different capitalizations in terms of stylizations, but now can't see it. I'll take your word for the Buzzfeed links and ambiguous starting time, though would ideally link to a different site. In any case, I now officially support! Outstanding work. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

Not sure if I'll post a full review, but I do have a few comments:

  • Given that it's been recently announced that this game is being ported to PCs, is this nomination premature?
  • The article appears to have been written entirely from the perspective of the game's developers (complete with lots of quotes from them). Surely industry experts, reviewers and critics also have perspectives which should be included (eg, was the development process unusually smooth or difficult? Why are all the three playable characters male?, etc)
  • Watch out for peacock prose and corporate jargon. From skimming the article I spotted stuff like "Grand Theft Auto V was envisioned to exceed the core mechanics of the Grand Theft Auto series", "The three interwoven stories had a positive critical reception and confirmed the team's confidence that building Grand Theft Auto V around this model was an innovative decision" and "co-opted a number of other studios owned by parent company Rockstar Games to facilitate development"
  • "Rockstar North, the core 360-person team behind the game" - exactly 360 people all the way through the development of the game? Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The recently-announced port is covered in the main article, and main development (as covered in this article) has been complete since 17 September 2013. There could be merit in having something on the port here but there's no real development information out there yet.
  • Third-party sources can't give as much insight into a game's development because they aren't in any way involved with it. They can comment on the game's development, like estimating the development budget and time, both of which are covered. I don't see any scope issues, because I haven't seen any solid development information come out written from an objective third-party.
  • I don't think the examples you cite are peacock, but they're on the border of jargon, yes. Is there more throughout? I'll likely run through a self-copy-edit and have your point in my mind.
  • The source unambiguously says 360. If it was 360 all the way through or not is irrelevant because that's what the source says, and going beyond that would be WP:OR. CR4ZE (tc) 12:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • the article does not clearly give a framework for when the development started. It just says after GTA4, but when was that without clicking on links?
    • Actually it does that but only very late in the article
  • I would find it interesting for the intro to estimate the number of people involved in creating the game
  • aren't there pics of people involved in creating the game?
  • potential power of both consoles => ????
  • the first section quote needs quotation marks
  • the collapsed table needs a title
  • I think promotion and delay and leaks should be moved at the end of the article
  • Grand Theft Auto V was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.=> but was released on other platforms too
  • Is the name Los Santos just random, or was it chosen for a specific reason?
  • shouldn't be there some form of concluding section like criticism or acclaim?

Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Nergaal!
  • This has been mentioned above; sources are saying different things about the exact development time frame. We'll look into it.
I meant say that you should have: "GTA5 started being developed right after GTA 4 was released in 20xx"
  • We can't really estimate how many people were involved in creating the game; we must rely on references.
Article says somewhere that over 1000 people were involved in programming? Say in the intro something along the lines "over 1000 ppl were involved in the programming alone"
  • Pictures of the development team definitely exist. I'll look into adding some, if you wish.
  • I'm unsure as to what you're confused about; "potential power of both consoles" seems like a fairly straightforward sentence. Please elaborate.
"potential power of both consoles" is in the text. which 2 consoles? gen 7 or 8? wii or not?
  • Added quotation marks.
  • Added title.
  • Promotion" and "Delay and leak" are both related to the Business part of development, which is why they are at the top.
What i meant is sthe article should start with a background, then with the actual development, then with the promotion. I don't see the point in splitting the article into 2 sections when you can have 3 chronological ones. isn't this article about the chronology part of the series?
  • That statement remains true; the game was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. When it is released for other platforms (or when development information of such is released), then more information shall definitely be added to the article.
What I meant is that the article needs to clarify that the game went beyond the 2 consoles
  • I'm not sure where the name "Los Santos" came from; it's been used since Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004), so it's unlikely that you'll be able to find the source of origin.
give it a shot
  • The Reception of the game can be found at the main article. This article is about the development only, so there's no need for critical response here.
-- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll try and track some free shots of the developers/key people. If not, are you cool with non-free? On the article's structure, I wrote this using Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, whose layout I like. I'm open to deviating from that. I doubt there's anything on the origins of Los Santos's name, because I've read possibly every interview and feature and found nothing. If there was, it'd probably be something from a GTA San Andreas interview back in 2003, and using that would broach WP:SYNTH imo. CR4ZE (tc) 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

CR4ZE, do you need more comments? If so, I can look the article over and give some. Tezero (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, sorry didn't see this. I'd love to get some comments from you if available. Cheers, CR4ZE (tc) 03:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember passing this for GAN, and now, after a few minor wording and grammar (yes, I know it's UK English) changes, which you can revert if you'd like (please look at all of them first, though), I'm confident in giving this my approval. Well done. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Iris[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a powerful hurricane in October 2001 that was one of the worst on record in Belize. However, it was pretty small, so the damage was pretty localized. I believe this article is the best compilation of sources on the storm on the internet, and it passes all FA criteria. Hope you enjoy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dank, I forgot to show my appreciation earlier! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ulysess S. Grant is an important figure in American History. I believe the Ulysses S. Grant article deserves FA status. The article is thoroughly researched and edited. Any controversial sections are previously discussed and remedied. The article is neutral and does not attempt to view Grant in either a negative or positive way, void of POV. The narration is free of passive sentences, hidden verbs, or clichés. The main sources include William S. McFeely's (1981) Grant: A Biography (Pulitzer Prize), Jean Edward Smith's (2001) Grant, and H.W. Brand's (2012), The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses S. Grant in War and Peace. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Ulysses S. Grant article starts during Grant's early years, continues through Grant's military career prior to the Civil War, Grant's days as a struggling farmer in Missouri, his dramatic military rise during the Civil War, his term as commanding general during Reconstruction, his feud with President Andrew Johnson, the Election of 1868 and eight year presidency, his world tour, bankruptcy, struggle with cancer and the success of his Memoirs. The article concludes with Grant's death and funeral. The historical evaluation is neutral. Addressed in the article during his Presidency are issues such Gilded Age politics, Native American policy, and Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments as to further improvement of the article are welcome and sought out. I recommend that the Ulysses S. Grant article be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments. Welcome to FAC.

  • Some paragraphs, for instance in Overland Campaign and victory and Vicksburg, have no citations at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. I will check into finding the appropriate citations. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Citations have been added to closing paragraphs in sections mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. I've done some copyediting in the lead, but judging by the lead, there's more to do here than I'm going to be able to cover during this FAC. Maybe someone else will step up, and if not, you can nominate the article for A-class, and get help with the copyediting there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Striking that ... it gets better below the lead, I'll copyedit, maybe ask some questions, and hopefully someone can finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "During this time, Grant quickly perceived that the war would be fought for the most part by volunteers and not professional soldiers.": I get the sense that that has some connection to the paragraph it's in, but I don't know what the connection is.
I added context. Grant was required to military train volunteers during his first battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dank for your copyediting! Great job! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments Generally good, but very wordy especially regarding the battles. Regrettably, I have no time for a full review. Some of these suggestions may be out of date, with Dank's edits
Lede
  • " following his military successes in the American Civil War. Under Grant, the Union Army defeated the Confederate military; the war, and secession, ended with the surrender of Robert E. Lee's army at Appomattox Court House." It strikes me this can be consolidated (ending the previous sentence with a period). " As commanding general, Grant led the Union armies to victory in the American Civil War, which ended with Robert E. Lee's surrender to him at Appomattox Court House". Makes clearer Grant's role.
The Civil War did not end at Appomatox Court Court House. Fighting continued for about a month and then there was a Reconstruction period until 1877. I would change the word "with" to "after" for context. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • " in the administration. " Suggest "in his administration".
  • Some of the later sentences in the first paragraph may be too much detail for a lede, especially the first paragraph and possibly should be moved later in the lede or deleted. Several items are mentioned in multiple paragraphs and could be usefully consolidated, for example the economic discussion in the third and fourth paragraphs.
    • See what you think now, Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Early
  • "She never took occasion to visit the White House during her son's presidency." possibly "She did not visit the White ..."
  • Can something be said about why Grant's family was influential?
    • I went the other way and deleted that bit; I agree that if we say they were influential, then Wehwalt's question should be answered. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside Grant's friends, were any members of his class particularly well-known?
  • "Grant made his way to the front lines to engage in the battle," presumably he was given orders that permitted this? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "the location that made them the happiest" possibly "the place where they were happiest" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " in a failed attempt to prevail upon the Congress to rescind an order that he in his capacity as quartermaster should reimburse the military $1000 for losses incurred on his watch, for which he bore no personal guilt." perhaps "in a failed attempt to persuade Congress to absolve him of a $1,000 debt to the Army for goods gone astray while in his custody" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " to continue his service as quartermaster. " this can be deleted if earlier in the sentence you say "Grant's next assignment as quartermaster" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Civilian
  • "but it did not succeed" perhaps "but without success" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " and promotion of abolishing slavery." perhaps ", and emancipation of the slaves" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Civil
  • Was Grant still in the militia when these promotions took place? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Grant's demeanor had changed at the outset of the war, renewing his energy and confidence." Not sure what this means. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The strategic importance of Henry and Donalson might be mentioned, that they commanded the Tennessee and Cumberland at the point where they are closest together, and thus disrupts Confederate movements and trade there. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Confederate stronghold of equal numbers " 48,894 Confederates?
Vicksburg
  • I'm not sure I like the way you've set up the discussion of Gen. Order No. 11. You excuse Grant before telling us about it, then after doing so quickly excuse him again. Criticism is minimal and consigned to late in the paragraph, and, after all, it was the fault of "overly aggressive" cotton traders. I think a more balanced approach is needed here. This is part of what Grant is remembered for. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • so at the end of the first day" of what?
  • "refugee-contraband slaves" I would simply say "slaves" or "former slaves" (after all, they had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation). Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments: McFeely refers to the slaves as contraband of war. I took out the word "refugee" and refer them as "freedmen" after the Emancipation Proclamation. I also added the term African-American to the section paragraph and added more context. Eaton was put in charge of the "contraband slaves" prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in December 1862. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the word "contraband" since I could not find the term in the wording of the Confiscation Acts. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed the word "freedmen" from the article section since Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation does not use the term "freedmen" in the document only that the slaves were set "free" "forever". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "and were vulnerable to" "who might be killed by", perhaps
  • It strikes me that the blow-by-blow description of the battles, in what is necessarily a long article, might be shortened considerably.
I may look in again later, but right now there's more to do than I have time to comment on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I responded to all of these that didn't require checking the sources, down to where I stopped copyediting at Shiloh. See what you think. -Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Good job Dank! Thanks. I added information to the lede covered in the Ulysses S. Grant article. I kept the corruption charges to one sentence. The historical reputation sentence also covers Grant's defense of corrupt appointees and his conservative response to the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I'll look back in it may take me a few days to do so my Internet is limited right now. It would be good to have this as an essay that would mean we'd have everyone from Andrew Johnson to McKinley as FA except for Garfield--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Didn't know that, good work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Lede
  • You are inconsistent, through the article, in your capitalization of "Union Army" vs. "Union army". 10-3 for the former, by my count.
Military career
  • "that territorial gains" since you have not mentioned previously, perhaps "that the territorial gains from the war"
  • "spread slavery throughout the nation" I don't see this. It did nothing to increase slavery, say, in Massachusetts. However, it did expand the territory open to slavery under the Missouri Compromise. Suggest saying that, or similar.
  • How long was Grant required to serve because he was at West Point? If he served longer than the minimum, at what point did he change his mind?
  • The word "intemperance" twice in a short space is jarring. One is in a quote; however, the other is not.
  • "to rescind the resignation" perhaps "to refuse the resignation"
Shiloh
  • "advance at Forts Henry and Donelson was the most significant advance" perhaps the first "advance" can be "victories" Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "bivouacked nine miles south at Pittsburg Landing" Nine miles south of what? And a metric conversion, I suppose 14 km, should be inserted.
  • "missing division" the reader is likely to be puzzled by this.
  • "so at the end of the first day" I doubt all this was built in a day, if it was, it should be specifically dated, not "December 1862". I would rephrase, perhaps deeming them "attempts".
  • "After the failed assault," surely assaults
  • "refugee-contraband slaves displaced" I still don't like this phrase. I think you're saying more than the reader is going to get. It doesn't sound as if Eaton did what Lincoln intended. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth recounting the (possibly apocryphal) story of Lincoln saying that if Grant was a drunkard, he'd send a barrel of his brand of whiskey to his other generals. Fixed
I added the "I can't spare this man; he fights" quote from Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Chattanooga
  • I'm not too familiar with the events of the battle, but you mention Hooker taking Lookout Mountain after you've said he was already there, sending weapons etc. to the besieged federals.
  • " be fed supplies from the James River." Perhaps "be supplied via the James River"
  • Perhaps you can be clearer that Grant was willing to expend troops to bleed the Confederates as the latter had fewer to spare.
  • "defeated Early, saving Washington from capture." I'm very dubious that Early could have captured Washington, given the heavy defenses around the capital. Or held it. Possibly overstated.
  • Although Grant approved the Battle of the Crater, it's not like he thought of the idea. (link needed). Also, the idea wasn't bad, it's that the Union troops didn't advance through the crater fast enough. Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Insert Comment: The Crater may have been a success and a failure. A success at blowing up Lee's line defense and a psychological defeat for the Confederates. Lee retaliated by blowing up a Union barge and wounded Grant's aide Orville E. Babcock in the hand. There were many casualties on both sides and the war tended to take a more sinister side using deception. Of course the Crater failed to stop the War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The description of the peace conference should have a link to Hampton Roads Conference.
  • I would probably mention that the problem with the terms concluded by Sherman were that they were political in nature, effectively leaving the North Carolina state government in place. It may be explained more clearly in our Andrew Johnson article, which does indicate that Johnson played a role in telling Sherman to stick to military surrenders. I suggest that a similar brief explanation be included here.
Celebrations etc.
Congressional etc.
  • A sense of why Grant concluded the things you mention in the first paragraph might be helpful.
  • "arguing that Congress should allow representatives from the South seated recognition." Overly complex. The South elected putative representatives and senators in elections (mostly excluding blacks) in 1866. Congress wouldn't seat them. Make this clearer.
  • "Radical mayor of Baltimore" Radical Republican?
  • "Military governors general" I don't recall the use of the term "governor general", which has a British Commonwealth air about it.
  • To be honest, given the limited relevance of the Baltimore incident given the warfare between Johnson and the Republicans, I'd rather have the same space spent in an explanation of the deteriorating relations between them. As it is, you pop into the political situation now and then, and I'm not sure that readers who are new to the situation are going to understand it. Since Grant was a key player in all of this as both sides wanted his support, a better explanation seems warranted.
  • I think your description of the Tenure of Office Act overlooks that it only protected officeholders during the term of the president who appointed him, and Stanton was not appointed by Johnson.
  • "Johnson's true frustration was with Grant's taking the Radicals' side." So you're saying Johnson was lying in saying he thought Grant had broken his word?
  • "unsuccessful attempt to impeach Johnson". Really?
Given that Johnson was impeached, i.e. Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, I'm again feeling that there's more to be done here that I can help with. I'm certainly not in a position to fact check the article, I have limited internet right now. That one is just so ... glaring, I'm not sure what more I can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Image review: Well, all images are out of copyright, but I think we can do a bit better. I'm working to improve it. On which subject, what do you think of this, cropped rather tight, to replace the current sketch of his wife? Alternatively, this shows her alone, and is a better photo of her, but leaves out his children. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I suggest starting a new article titled "Family of Ulysses S. Grant". We have to keep this article size managable. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: There's already a picture of her in there, it's just a very bad engraving that should be replaced; I'm trying to decide which of two better images to replace it with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Portrait photos will work in the article. I don't agree the engraving is bad, however, a good photo portrait of First Lady Grant is acceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick observation only: G'day, when I run the Harv Errors script it identifies a few issues with the references, including a few short citations that don't seem to point to a long citation, for instance "Whyte, pp. 18–39"; "Ackerman, pp. 90–91" and "Murray & Blessing". Are you able to find the bibliographic details for these and add them in, please? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
How is the article coming along? I think there have been great improvements to the narration and context. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how familiar you are with the FAC process, but all of those comments above are changes the reviewers think you should address. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Yes. I am trying to go through each one that has not already been addressed. Any help is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Footnotes should immediately follow punctuation without spaces
  • "According to Simon, party defections, the Panic of 1873, increase of scandals, and the North's retreat from Reconstruction weakened Grant's second term in office" - source? Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are still a few Harv Errors to be corrected
  • Missing bibliographic info for Murray & Blessing, Ackerman, Whyte Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't mix cited and uncited sources in the same section - suggest creating a Further reading section
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • FN80, 133, 147, 190: page formatting
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated full citations
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are included and if so how they are formatted
  • No need to include "Pulitzer Prize" in the citation
  • ISBN for Perry?
  • Publisher for Rhodes?
  • Year and ISBN for Simpson?
  • University of North Carolina Press or The University of North Carolina Press? Check for consistencies in naming. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Of Human Feelings[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. I attempted to address the previous FAC's concern about close paraphrasing by soliciting another reviewer ([6], [7]). I've also cleaned up the references for a consistent citation format/style and copy-edited/rewrote some parts ([8]). Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DISEman[edit]

Overall I find this a well written, comprehensive, well-researched, referenced and structured article worthy of a Featured Article but there are a few (minor) points that may improve it further:

  • The statement under Recording that "According to him, Of Human Feelings was the first digitally recorded jazz album in the United States" may be true but there may be more details- a quick check of Litweiler, p. 152 states "It was the first time an American label [i.e. CBS] had recorded a digital album in New York, and it made front-page news in Billboard. here is the Billboard front page. Also Litweiler, pg. 153 supports the statement under Release and promotion that "A few weeks after the album was recorded, Mwanga went to Japan to complete arrangements for it to be issued as a Phrase Text release by Trio Records, who had previously released a compilation of Coleman's 1966 to 1971 live performances in Paris".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Critical reception is excellent using the contemporary reviews - I added one from Rolling Stone but the ref may need some editing to fit the article. Any reason for avoiding the rating template?
I've revised and moved the Rolling Stone quote so that it stays in-topic with the rest. That template is optional and didn't seem to suit this article IMO--only Christgau (The Village Voice), Yanow (AllMusic) in a retrospective review, and now Morrison (Rolling Stone) rated the album, and their ratings have been easily worked into the prose, so the template would only be reiterating a few ratings. Dan56 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All in all you have my Support DISEman (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. Article is well-balanced both in structure and content, sources cited seem reliable and plentiful. Friginator (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Semitransgenic[edit]

  • Comment for a featured article, citing anonymous record reviews directly is not ideal, would prefer to see such content replaced with secondary source citations that make the observations the editor is drawing our attention to. Also, saying how something charted and then citing the chart as a source could be viewed as OR. Otherwise, aside from those minor points, looks OK to me. Semitransgenic talk. 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the line "...had no success on the American pop charts", Semitransgenic? Because that's attributed to a source that says this. Also, all the reviews cited in #Critical reception include the names of critics/authors of the reviews. Do you mean you'd prefer that there was a book that summarized the reviews itself? Citing reviews directly, however, is the most common practice in WP:ALBUMS articles, and there is a project page dedicated to such sources being cited (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Froglich[edit]

Oppose This article, while by no means bad, fails at present to (IMO) maintain good criteria. Quibbles: 1) While the article is indeed comprehensive (it's obvious that fans have poured in a lot of effort) it is arguably excessively so given the minimal notability of its subject (a poor-selling album by a musician with five dozen other works, many of which are demonstrably far more noteworthy (e.g., The Shape of Jazz to Come being inducted into the Library of Congress, etc) yet possessing small article size relative to this one. Featured status is generally granted to well-written articles in topics of widespread interest; 2) no references in the lead; 3) grammar and sentence construction less than optimal (e.g., absence of parenthesizing where appropriate, poor deployment of commas and semi-colons, etc); -- My advice is to tighten up the article to hang onto good status -- and be glad you have that in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Froglich, 1) What "fans"? I'm the only editor who has contributed to this article, which was this before I started working on it. It is based entirely on what reliable secondary sources have written about it--significant coverage establishes notability (WP:SIGCOV), not popular interest. And the majority of the coverage cited here is from high-quality book and journal sources, who've decided it warranted this much coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have written so "excessively" about it. And although I get where you're coming from, "widespread interest" has nothing to do with the FA criteria (WP:FACR), so personal opinions on its notability in relation to other articles shouldn't be a factor in your assessment, only the points listed at WP:FACR. There are top-importance articles that garner the attention of certain editors, and there are articles like this, which I chose simply because the album interested me at the time, as it often the case with FAs--their importance varies and isn't exclusive to top or high-importance articles. 2) If what's written in the lead is written and cited in the body, citations are redundant in the lead (WP:LEADCITE) 3) semicolons before conjunctions like and is an unnecessary, outdated practice ([9]) I don't see the reasoning behind this addition/revision with parenthesizing, which deemphasized the line about critical praise, used "featuring"--a present participle--in the first paragraph, and linked "harmolodic" (which is already linked in the first paragraph). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you've been told that the rules of English grammar regarding sentence composition and punctuation are in some state of flux at present, you are have been led astray. (Grammar-monster at the vanguard of slovenliness does not impress those of us who know what we're doing.)--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to sound uppity about this, or refrain from backing up your argument with anything saying otherwise. My point was your change was unnecessary, as Geraldine Woods brings up in Wiley AP English Language and Composition. Preferential grammar changes aren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
<shrug> Believe what you want. Reality will intrude soon enough to spank all those bad commas.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • While I understand this article is your labor-of-love, that has no bearing on whether or not it is ultimately worthy of Featured status -- being informative and well-written are not the sole requirements. Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles acquire Featured status. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a Featured article, yet neither the preceding nor succeeding Beatles album articles are accorded even Good status despite being written in the same format with the same arrangement and depth of information. I would guess Pepper is Featured because it contains A Day in the Life, which tops some industry lists as the greatest pop/rock song of all time. In other words, it is immensely notable as one of it not the most famous song by one of if not the most famous bands in history. -- If any article concerning Ornette Coleman becomes Featured, it will likely be the one concerning his album or single with the most significant historical resonance.--Froglich (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong impression of the GA and FA processes Froglich, and I don't see the relevance of other stuff existing when several other low-importance album articles have been promoted to FA status, including Confusion (album) (one of mine) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. If this irks you, then you can choose to abstain from reviewing, but what you're arguing isn't an "actionable objection" and isn't benefiting the review process in any way, to better the article for FA purposes. Please read WP:FACR--the level of importance of the article's topic is not part of the criteria. I'm beginning to feel there's an issue of understanding WP guidelines (WP:CIR) when you've overlooked the criteria page and basic MOS guidelines in your edit to the lead. Ian Rose, am I missing something? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't have time for a long reply now but it's quite correct that the perceived 'importance' of a subject has nothing to do with its potential to become a Featured Article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Potential" is arbitrary wishing-for-ponies; I referenced an actual Featured article. Dan brings up two more (which shoot down his own notability-is-unnecessary argument: Confusion (on at least one Best 100 Album lists) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which had two Grammy nominations) are considerably more successful and influential than Of Human Feelings. To reiterated a previously made point to Dan56, he should concentrate on improving the article concerning Coleman's best known and critically acclaimed work, or that of Coleman himself.--Froglich (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
GrahamColm, this reviewer's obstinacy and lack of competency are becoming an issue, as are his smug responses to every point I make in response to his arguments, which unlike mine, cite nothing to back up his claims. Disregard his review, because there are no actionable objections. Dan56 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
And yet it was your bright idea to bring me in here, wasn't it? (Competence: having the brains necessary to realize that I wouldn't immediately club you with that upon the first hint of fallacious argumentum ad hominem.)--Froglich (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, you're using your personal definitions of Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. I attempted to randomly solicit reviews, rather than dubiously canvass editors I'm familiar with, whom I'd expect to be competent and have a grasp of those guidelines and criteria. You've been told by an FAC delegate that "importance" has nothing to do with the criteria, yet you continue to impose your personal criteria. How do you respond? By canvassing a retired editor you know opposed this article's previous FAC ([10]) Your review is losing more and more weight. Dan56 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to wager on whether or not he still dislikes it?--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • Generally excellent
  • In the 'critical reception' section, there are some words and phrases that sound like they could be quotes and if not, are perhaps not quite neutral / encyclopedic: eg "compositions that are clearly expressed and occasionally timeless"; "displays expressive immediacy rather than superficial technical flair"; "encompassing of a century of creative development in African-American music". It would be good if those offline sources were checked.
The first one is a paraphrase of this. The second is a paraphrase of "the emphasis is never on virtuoso pyrotechnics for their own sake, or in empty stylistic phrase mongering. In every composition there is a synergy of thought and feeling that communicates instantly." The last one is a paraphrase of "The music literally pours out of this ensemble in strains of melody and rhythm that sums up the last 100 years of creative development in Afro-American music." I don't think neutrality matters when the words/paraphrase are attributed to a source in the prose, eg. "Natambu of the Detroit Metro Times said" what would otherwise not be neutral if in Wikipedia's words. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've tweaked one of the three; the others look OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The present tense here strongly suggests it is a quote: "his more knowledgeable friends have found Of Human Feelings to be the best of the three albums..."
Present tense? Isnt "have found" past? Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be "his more knowledgeable friends found..." but i realise i haven't used the right term - i'm nota grammar expert - but this phrase has him talking about the present - it sounds like a quote from a reporter of the period. Anyway, if it isn't a quote, then it isn't a quote... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Subject to these checks, i'm a support on prose, structure, comprehensiveness and referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BananaLanguage[edit]

The third and fourth FAC reviews for this article were closed after a reviewer noticed what they perceived to be plagiarism. It is not clear to me that the nominator's attempts to address these accusations are sufficient ([11], [12]) because the types of close-paraphrasing that caused concern in the third review are quite different from simple lexical substitution. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@BananaLanguage:, I asked for an independent review (as requested in the previous FAC) from an experienced editor and significantly revised several parts of the article (many of which were unnecessary, but I did it anyway just in case anyone is still anal about it just because there were a some examples--and no more since--brought up by one or two editors in the past FAC). I did mention these revisions at the top of this FAC, if you didn't notice? In the above comment from hamiltonstone, I showed relevant portions of print sources to prove to the reviewer they were paraphrased properly. If your concern is based in something you can prove, then bring it up. Otherwise, I don't know exactly what you expect. Your comment doesn't seem to suggest anything practical. Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
One practical option would be to invite GabeMc and Laser brain to randomly, or closely, inspect the article to check for too-close paraphrasing. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@BananaLanguage:, both retired not too long ago (User talk:GabeMc, User talk:Laser brain). And the burden would still be on me to dig up the sources I had originally found and write the relevant portions out for whoever is reviewing, which I demonstrated in the third FAC with at least one review in its entirety (the Detroit Metro-Times review), as well as the three that hamiltonstone asked about above. I've offered before to transcribe the relevant portions ([13]). The crux of this is whether these concerns or perception of close paraphrasing are yours, not theirs, and why, and also whether all these revisions since have made any difference in your opinion. Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith, however, this is proving difficult because you have a history [14] [15] [16] of close-paraphrasing sources. I think, in this case, it would be helpful if you could provide access to as many of the materials as possible, to help the community ensure this article is free of plagiarism. BananaLanguage (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
BananaLanguage, I don't have a history--you're citing what was an on-going dispute between I and GabeMc at Are You Experienced and at this article's past FAC again. As far as what sources I could "provide", I obviously could transcribe them all, but you don't expect me to do that, do you? I revised much of this article since that FAC you're bringing up, so perhaps you could request certain print sources citing the material that appears "untouched" or unrevised since that time. This is the diff between January when the last FAC happened and now. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would benefit this FAC review if you could provide the surrounding paragraph of text for all the sources marked as subscription required. BananaLanguage (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Those four sources marked "subscription required" are news sources behind a paywall. Unfortunately I cannot access those anymore, because I had found them through Google News Archive and its search result previews (rather than actually having a registered account for Newsbank); Google News Archive was shut down in December of last year (Google_News_Archive#History), after I had written the bulk of the article last Fall. Certain book sources cited in this article, however, can still be accessed (to an extent) without a paywall of any sort, either through GoogleBooks' previews or Amazon.com's preview. Dan56 (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I can take a trip to the nearby deposit library and use their resources to do this for you. The time-frame I propose to complete this task is 15 days, due to other real-life commitments . BananaLanguage (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
n.p. go for it. Dan56 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

I recall GrahamColm saying in a previous FAC of mine that alt text isn't an FA requirement ([17]) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Even though the section isn't long, maybe you could split "Personnel" into two columns for musicians and additional personnel?
What do you mean? It already is lol (Of_Human_Feelings#Personnel) Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that splitting the "Bibliography" section into 30em columns would make it a touch more organized.
K, done WikiRedactor. Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, I have nothing else to add; it is clear you've put in a lot of effort into this article because it is in great shape. I trust that you will handle the alternate text, and my other two suggestions are pretty much a matter of personal preference, so I am happy to give you my support. Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Overall, looking very nice :). Just several things:

  • When in 1982 was the album released?
None of the sources available or used specified, SNUGGUMS. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to jazz writer Francis Davis, 'a modest commercial breakthrough seemed imminent' for Coleman, whose celebrity appeared to be 'on the rise again'"..... meaning "celebrity status"? Also, you might wanna tweak the beginning to something like "Jazz writer Francis Davis sensed Coleman was about to have a 'modest commercial breakthrough'".
"Celebrity" is used as a noun here → "Fame, renown; the state of being famous or talked-about." I used "According to" so that it would read better as the leading sentence in that paragraph; the next sentence uses the structure you're suggesting: "[Writer so-and-so] said that..." Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've noticed there are no singles listed..... is this why the album has no chartings either?
I don't think jazz albums ever produce singles, but this album did not chart on any major charts. Only the Top Jazz Albums chart, but a "Charts" table/section is only necessary if there are multiple chartings (MOS:ALBUM#Charts) Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem, just thought I'd ask SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The "M" in AllMusic should be capitalized.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Piped link, done. Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discogs is not a reliable source, so you'll have to take that out of the "External links"
It's not being cited as a source, just an external link, which have a different criteria for inclusion--"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (WP:ELMAYBE → "Links to be considered") Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see..... has Discogs been approved of as EL (like IMDb)? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd assume so, since there was a template created just for it, which this article uses (Template:Discogs master), but the criteria for any EL is usually a site having relevant information that otherwise can't be worked into/cited into the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Very well. I now officially support. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This is incorrect, Discogs most certainly is a reliable source, given releases are verified among a number of users to ensure release details are verified. So I don't know where that idea comes from whatsoever. As for EL's, Discogs has been used across WP for YEARS now – where have you been, lol!? This is additionally the very reason there are also four clear EL templates for linking to Discogs pages accordingly, see here: Template:Discogs Jimthing (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There's my 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow[edit]

A comprehensive media review was last done in the article's second FAC, so I'll do another to see how things stand:

Support on criterion 3, although I'll reiterate that it'd be nice to have definite source of the album cover. Adabow (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Done ([18]) Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

I'm running late at the moment but I have read through the article, and it's crisp and incorporates technical terms well. One thing-

  • The lead's first two paragraphs both start with Of Human Feelings. I'd suggest altering the second one to "it" or "The album"
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that grammatically if the paragraphs start that way, although I find it more clearer to readers than "it", and "the album" may not be clear with the reference to "1975 album Dancing in Your Head" in the second paragraph's first sentence. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than that I will support this article, assuming that it will successfully pass a source check. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 141[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about another one of the US Highways in Michigan (and Wisconsin). Again, our coverage of this highway on Wikipedia is probably the best of any place online, and I feel the article is deserving of the FA star. The article also covers the history of US 102, the first ever US Highway designation to be decommissioned, lasting only two years after the creation of the system. Imzadi 1979  01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment—I will be out of town until July 1. Any reviews requiring attention will be addressed after that time. Imzadi 1979  10:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and very well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Amphetamine[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... amphetamine; you probably know what that is. In the first and second FAC reviews, a single reviewer complained about the sentence-by-sentence standard used in the article in each review. Following the closure of the second FAC, I sought feedback from WP:MED on this and obtained project-wide consensus to retain the current citation standard. Please keep that in mind before linking the user essay WP:CITATION OVERKILL during this review.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Added: this link contains all the WP:PAYWALLED papers cited in the amphetamine article. The file names reflect the ref name from the source (i.e., these papers were named according to <ref name="File name">).Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Hi coordinators - since a month has passed without any new reviews, I had a question about the potential outcome of this FAC in order to determine whether or not I should spend time trying to convince other editors to take on a review; with that in mind, if no one else starts a review before this nomination closes next month, will this FAC be archived?
Following the closure of the last FAC, Shudde continued his review at Talk:Amphetamine/Archive_4#Shudde and eventually decided that he didn't want to continue reviewing after I sought feedback on WT:MED regarding some of his alleged problems with the article. Summarizing the first two FACs: three reviewers (Anypodetos, The Sceptical Chymist, and John) supported after their concerns were addressed; two reviewers (Aa77zz and Shudde) opposed but will not provide further feedback after I attempted to address the concerns they raised; one editor (Hamiltonstone) completed his review and remained neutral, deferring to your judgment on the level of technicality/accessibility of the article content; and lastly, two editors (Axl and Curly Turkey) didn't make a position statement or finish their reviews. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seppi, normally we'd archive a review that's had no interest for a few weeks but I'm always loathe to do that when it's been round the block a couple of times and the nominator has made a genuine attempt to address concerns. It's also pragmatic: if we remove a nom because it's had no comments then standard practice would be to allow you to renominate without waiting the usual two weeks and that doesn't really change the situation. What I did do last night was list it among the FACs requiring urgent attention at the top of WT:FAC. What you can do is invite via neutrally worded posts all the main players in the previous FAC noms (supporters, opposers and neutrals) to revisit it here, and we'll see what develops in the next week or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Older nominations[edit]

Sesame Street international co-productions[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, yet another Sesame Street article at FAC. This article happens to be one of my favs, and is near and dear to my heart. I took it on when other editors began to complain about a lack of international perspective of The Show. I thought it was ridiculous feedback, since I, like Joan Ganz Cooney, thought that it's "quintessential American", but also like Cooney, was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. My single favorite Cooney quote is in this article; can you guess what it is? Anyway, this is a charming article about a charming aspect of the SS ethos, its international co-productions. I look forward to your feedback, and please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 14 June 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, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Fascinating topic - read this while I was at the gym - looked ok, will read again and drop queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cas; for some reason, this strikes me as funny. ;)
:Lone sentence constituting stubby third para in lead - can we tack it onto previous or expand or do something? I hate two-sentence paras.....
Went with first choice; the article isn't long enough to expand it. Usually, I tend to agree with this sentiment, but I think this could be an exception. However, I believe in following reviewers' suggestions, unless they're unreasonable, which this isn't.
Also would read better if in chronological order.
Done.
As of 2006, there were 20 active "co-productions". - I think we can remove quote marks after the first mention (?)
Got it.
The section co-productions is a tad listy in places...and leaves me curious - any more interesting facts that can be sprinkled through about any of the shows would improve the flow - also, do any US muppets feature in overseas co-productions?
At first, this section was a list! ;) I didn't want to include too much information, mostly because for most of the co-productions, there isn't that much information available. For the few that have more, I figured that most of the information belongs in their individual articles. However, I see your point and have started working on expanding some descriptions. I'll let you know when I think I'm finished. Re: your questions about how the U.S. Muppets are used: there's not a lot of information about that, either. I didn't want this to become a list of characters and their relationship to their American counterparts; again, that better fits in their individual articles, I think. However, in the "Production" section, there is some information about how our Muppets are used to inspire the co-productions' characters, and that they appear in the dubbed versions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Casliber: I've completed, as per your request, expanding some of the co-productions descriptions; hopefully, it accomplishes what you've asked and the section is less list-y and flows better. Thanks for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking better. Some more:

Rejig segment on Rechov Sumsum - should explain why different straight after (i.e. the bit on being first co-production should come directly after mention of difference.
Took me a while to figure out what you meant, but I think I got this.
Sort of - really the bit beyond "differed/different" should be clearly indicated that it is causative with a "because" or linking word which indicates it, not "and" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll assume that my fix was satisfactory. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It'd be good if there was some conclusion on current status or future plans right at the bottom. Right now article just...ends. Not a huge deal but might be improved somehow.
Actually, I think this might be an issue with how this article is structured. At one point, this article looked like this: [19]--a list, really. I kept the structure because, as other editors advised me, there needed to be some information about the individual co-productions here. The previous section ("Production"), however, ends with the SW opening up their library for future co-productions; I think that accomplishes what you desire. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, I know - I find alot of this is kinda like kneading dough - you squish and mould and other bits become distorted, so you knead some more. Let me look and think some more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg: FUR could use expanding. Who holds the copyright? Why is this image necessary for our understanding of the article? Same with File:Sisimpur.jpg
  • File:Tv_sesame_park_katie.jpg: puppet designs can be copyrighted - what is the status of this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I took the easy way out and replaced these images with free ones. Please let me know if they're appropriate for this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Support
  • The third paragraph of "History" and the second paragraph of "Production" do not end in references.
Got 'em.
  • How about adding fn 14 to the References?
Because my style of formatting sources, which is similar to how they're often formatted in printed books, is that I place printed sources like the Finch book in the Works cited section if it's used more than once. I only use Finch once in this article, so it gets its own footnote.
  • The lead mentions "the initial productions in Canada, Mexico, Australia," This made me expect something about the Australian co-production. 40 years at Sesame Street
I will do some research about the Aussie show and see if I can add anything. (Your source is a blog, which isn't reliable enough.) In the meantime, I removed the list of countries and changed the wording so that it better reflects the body.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hawk, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Tentative support; agreed with the nominator, this is both a charming and very necessary article in the SS canon. As always well-written and researched and conscientiously thorough in presentation. I especially like the generally nicely-judged level of detail in the chronological sections. Shoebox2 talk 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Just a few things that caught my attention (besides a couple very minor grammar/spelling errors I've taken the liberty of fixing):

  • First sentence under "History": international producers from various countries including Germany contacted the CTW within "a few months". Next sentence: German producers contacted the CTW after about a year. Not sure either about the time discrepancy or why Germany should be singled out in particular.
Good point; I removed the second mention of Germany.
  • "She hired former CBS executive Mike Dann, who left commercial television to become her assistant, as a CTW vice-president. One of Dann's tasks was to field offers to produce versions of Sesame Street in other countries." -- A bit awkward, and redundant. How about "Mike Dann, a former CBS executive whom Cooney had hired as a CTW vice-president and her assistant, was assigned to field offers from other countries to produce their own versions of Sesame Street."
Much better; replaced as per your suggestion.
  • Totally optional, based on your understanding of the subject, but: from what I've heard from (admittedly informal) British sources the story of the BBC's de facto rejection of the SS phenomenon is interesting enough that it might be worth a few more detailed sentences. At least, it would be instructive to know just why they thought it was "too controversial", which bare statement sounds really odd in re: a heartwarming children's puppet-based educational program. :)
Good question. My opinion is that this story, which I agree is interesting (and funny too), is best for Sesame Street in the UK. This article is a summary of the co-productions, which is in the current version. Any more would result in undue weight. On a side note, I've taken it upon myself to create/expand articles about the various co-productions, and the UK version(s) is in the queue, as they say. Currently, I've been working on Iftah Ya Simsim, the Arabic version. It's been a lot more work than I thought, because there's a lot of information out there about it (in English, even), but it's been fun. I believe that my efforts will do much to combat the systemic bias in this project, especially about non-Western topics. Wait for a future FAC near you! ;)
  • I feel like the third and fourth paragraphs in this section might be better off reversed? That is, begin by talking about the co-productions in general, and then talk about the specific highlights/controversies/spinoffs.
At first, I went "heh" about this suggestion, then I actually tried it and have decided that you're right. I wanted to end the section strongly, so I moved the last 2 sentences about mission and Cooney's quote about missionaries (that's my favorite all-time SS quote, btw) to a separate paragraph at the end.
  • "Production": "...the "experiment" accomplished by the original US show..." -- Not fond of 'accomplished' in this context; how about 'undertaken'?
Got it.
  • "Imitating what the producers did..." -- Getting nitpicky here I know, but maybe "In imitation of the process used by the producers..." would sound a bit more encyclopedic-like?
Well, *I think* that starting a sentence with a preposition isn't all that encyclopedia-like, either. So how about this for a compromise, even though it makes it passive: "The need for preschool education in each country was assessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts, which paralleled what the producers of Sesame Street did in the late 1960s."
  • Again, thinking paragraphs 3-4 of this section might flow better if they were flipped--going from generalizations to specifics.
Okey dokey, smokey.
  • "1970s": "Garibaldo's performer, Fernando Gomes, became a puppeteer because of the show's influence." -- This is in reference to the American show, yes? Because as written, the reader's impression is he signed on as puppeteer on the Brazilian version, whereupon that version inspired him to become a puppeteer.
No, Gomes was inspired by the original Brazilian version. I can see how you were confused, so I re-checked the source and clarified.
  • "1980s": No doubt it's covered in the show's own article, but I'm thinking a sentence or two describing the impact of the Israeli/Palestinian co-produced version would be appropriate here. Ditto for the similarly ambitious Kosovo version.
Um, actually I wouldn't know; I haven't worked on those individual articles yet. However, as you state above, I'm trying to be even-handed here. I mean, why are the effects of the shows in the Middle East more important than the effects in Sweden? Because we have more invested in that region? Or because it's in the news more? I don't think this addition is necessary.
  • "1990s": "The show is supported by its patron, Egyptian First Lady Suzanne Mubarak." -- Should be past tense in light of more recent events, no?
Yes. Actually, it's a grammatical error, since it doesn't match the tense in the rest of the paragraph.
  • 2000s":...the producers of the Kosovo co-production... pioneered a format called the "visual dictionary". Instead of showing individual words on the screen, children were encouraged to label words verbally." -- ...? Not quite getting how "visual dictionary" and "label words verbally" refer to the same concept?
Yah, the source wasn't clear how the phrase ("visual dictionary") described what they were trying to do with the language, so I went back and paralleled the source more closely, and removed the phrase.

User:Shoebox2, I think that I've hit everything. Thanks for the very helpful review, and please let me know if I need to do anything more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, all now looks great from my POV, and as always thanks for so carefully considering my suggestions. Happy to change vote to firm support.Shoebox2 talk 01:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Droeshout portrait[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomer T (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of only two portraits definitively identifiable as a depiction of the William Shakespeare. The article is well-written, well-referenced and covers the topic well. It was nominated to GA status in 2012, which was a successful nomination. Tomer T (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:William_Shakespeare_1609.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Droeshout-shakespeare-detail.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I noted that there was some material that appeared to be unsourced in the article, and that the citations are inconsistently formatted - I would suggest resolving these issues before someone reviews sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone

  • Per Nikki above, there are significant passages that are unsourced. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: There has been no attempt in three weeks to deal with the sources issues raised above, and no edits at all on the article since April. Thus, no preparation before the nomination, and no action after it. The circumstances of the nomination are odd, with neither the nominator nor the main contributor apparently interested in its progress. I'd be happy to review it, but only if there is an indication that the nomination is being taken seriously, and that someone will respond to any issues arising from the review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okęcie Airport incident[edit]

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Chances are you've never heard of this, but don't scroll past just yet if you're interested in either football or the Cold War, because this is actually quite an interesting little episode in Poland in 1980. It basically centres on the Poland football team's forward player Stanisław Terlecki, who also happened to be both an anti-communist activist and a bit of a cheeky so-and-so. Poland were at the time one of the best football teams around. In November 1980 their goalkeeper got drunk the night before their departure for Italy and was left behind as punishment. Terlecki, who had already been repeatedly banned for trying to unionise the footballers, led the players in an ultimately successful revolt against management over the goalkeeper, then directly defied the communist authorities by arranging for the mostly Catholic team to meet the Pope in Rome. Terlecki and three other players were sent home, a rather spurious court-martial ensued and Terlecki ended up emigrating to America. He returned home in 1986 with hopes of regaining his place in the team but never played for Poland again.

I took this up to GA a couple years ago, and have just polished it up a bit in the last few days. I am confident it now meets the FA criteria. Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. 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 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reviewing this for WP:POLAND:
    • "industrial unrest"?
      • I don't see any problem with this term; are you saying it is incorrect grammatically or that it is not an accurate description? Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Can you reference it? I just redirected the unref stub we had on industrial unrest to labor unrest which I think would be more appopriate, but in either case you probably should reference the use of those terms in this context. Presumably by repeating and footnoting this phrase in the article body. Ditto for political unrest. As a sociologist, I do think that the use of such terms should not be hap-hazzard, but properly thought-out and referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I've tried to phrase this better, with another new reference in the body; we now refer to strike action and other forms of civil resistance for political change. Is this better? Cliftonian (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "The punishments regarded by many as too harsh" - missing "were", and weaselish
    • "The first non-communist trade union in an Eastern bloc country," - this probably should be split into a stand alone sentence
    • "top sides" - I think just saying "best" would sound better
    • soccer terminology like "forward" should be linked
      • OK, I have gone through and put links; please tell me if I missed any Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • " the intellectual Terlecki " this sounds off
    • "held a degree in history " - masters?
      • The source statement (from Sports Illustrated) doesn't say: "He earned a degree in history from the University of Lodz and thus became the first national team member to have graduated from a university in anything but physical education." Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps User:Tymek would be able to help. I'd like to see him comment here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • can you discuss notability of Hotel Vera and why it should or shouldn't be linked in light of WP:RED?
    • Wojciech Zieliński is probably notable, has an article on pl wiki pl:Wojciech Zieliński (komentator sportowy). Ditto for pl:Stefan Szczepłek and pl:Włodzimierz Reczek, and the magazines pl:Piłka Nożna (tygodnik) and pl:Tempo (gazeta). If you think any of them are not notable, please explain it here, otherwise link them per WP:RED
    • "A senior national team official, Colonel" - I am not sure I understand his position...? Security/bodyguard?
      • I don't actually have the full article (Tymek originally added the information, I think), and in any case it's in Polish, so I think I'll leave this for him. (Note for others: Tymek has been messaged and pinged.) Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "whose own car was to hand" - is this English? What hand? "At hand"?
      • "to hand" is proper English, I am fairly sure. Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • briefly explain what Przegląd Sportowy was (another sports magazine)
    • "The players, who were mostly Catholics," - who wasn't?
      • I put it this way rather than saying "all Catholics" to allow for the assumption that at least a couple of them may have been atheists. (The sources don't cover the players' religion in any real detail.) I think it's relatively safe if you prefer to say they were all Catholics (as on paper they probably all were), or perhaps we can say "predominantly Catholic" or something like that? Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, what the sources say? Otherwise we are dealing with OR. It is likely all players were raised as Catholics, but... we need sources for their faith, or this should be dropped. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
          • OK, well I think we can take it out without losing too much of the meaning anyway (most people with a cursory knowledge of Poland would be aware that the country is overwhelmingly Catholic) Cliftonian (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • generals are notable by default, so why wasn't pl:Marian Ryba linked to Marian Ryba?
    • link Ministry of Internal Affairs (Poland)
    • Terlecki played in Poland until 1993, I think, while the article gives the impression that upon his return he was never allowed to do so
      • Sorry for being ambiguous, should have made clear he played at club level (albeit not internationally) after he came back. Have rectified this Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • pinging User:Tymek who knows a lot about Polish soccer's history.
      • I messaged him already (he helped a lot with this article already!) but thanks for this, good thought Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Overall, nice job. Ping me when the above are fixed or argued, and I'll consider whether I am ready to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review Piotr, I have answered each point above. I hope you are well and look forward to continuing the review Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Is there meant to be something in the now-empty Footnote section?
    • No, there was but took it out, thanks Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • GBooks links can be truncated after page number
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include location and/or publisher
  • Archivedate and accessdate should have the same formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this Nikki. Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I was the GA reviewer of this article some considerable time ago and remember enjoying it greatly. It seems even better now, and I will be happy to support once my very minor concerns are addressed. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • "which in turn led to first the suspension of several prominent players": To my ear, "led first to..." sounds more natural but maybe that's me.
  • No you're right, that's better. Nice eye (ear?) Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "was tired and hungover when the time came to leave the hotel": Is hungover formal enough for the lead here? (Sounds like an old Private Eye headline about "tired and emotional"...
  • I've shortened to just "hungover" as the fact that he was tired seems to be included therein (rare indeed that you have somebody who is hungover but not tired) Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "having spent a sleepless night on the town drinking with a friend": Sleepless night I think usually suggests insomnia; we could perhaps lose "sleepless" altogether, but perhaps if something is needed, maybe "having not been to sleep following a night on the town with a friend"?
  • I've adopted your wording, which I think is better and clearer Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "much to the indignation of some of the other players" Redundancy?
  • "Smolarek received a more modest ban, with a suspension period": Something of a tautology here, as it would be hard to be banned without a period of suspension!
  • Ah! What is meant is that the punishment was suspended (like a suspended sentence), so nothing actually happened to him. I've changed to "Smolarek received a more modest, suspended ban", which I hope is clearer (and better prose) Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In June 1976, a series of protests took place across communist Poland": Would this be better as "During June 1976..."? Not sure.
  • Hmmm. I'll think about this one. I prefer "in" myself, just because it's shorter. Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "the government announced plans to sharply increase the fixed prices charged nationwide for many basic commodities": A split infinitive is, I think, perfectly acceptable but does drive some pedants to rage and is a target for some person to comment on when this reaches the main page. Perhaps best avoided?
  • Have changed to "to increase sharply" Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Several Poland players knew her and Młynarczyk had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus.": I'm afraid I slightly lose the meaning of this sentence. Is it "Several Poland players knew her" [and also that] Młynarczyk had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus" or "Several Poland players knew [both her and Młynarczyk] had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus." Or something else?
  • I've put a comma in (her, and Młynarczyk) to try to make this clearer. It's the former case. Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "A number of journalists attacked the players who had supported Młynarczyk; the Przegląd Sportowy sports magazine ran the headline "no mercy for those guilty of the scandal at the airport" while Tempo was similarly severe, proclaiming "this cannot be tolerated"": Maybe I'm being stupid, but why do we have small caps here?
  • I put it like that because it's a newspaper headline (thought it would add flavour as it better resembles how probably it would have looked as a headline), but it doesn't seem to fit with MOS so I've taken this out Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the football association president, Polish Army General Marian Ryba, escorting them on the plane.": We have a "with [noun] [verb]-ing" here, which is best avoided.
  • OK. Have also redrawn slightly here Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Smolarek received a two-month ban, with a six-month suspension period": I'm again struggling with the difference between ban and suspension here.
  • I have tried to clarify here again (see above). "Smolarek received a two-month ban, which was suspended for six months" Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "There were several other incidences of drunkenness": Would "incidents" be less of a mouthful? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your thoughts and kind words Sarastro, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I hope my responses above are all right. Hope you're well and have a great week. Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: Looks good to me, and I'm happy to support now. Nice work! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the kind words Sarastro. =) Cliftonian (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: The use and placement of images is splendid, and the article is an entertaining read.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Marshal! Glad you enjoyed the article. Keep well! Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 Rosario gas explosion[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an explosion that took place in Rosario, Argentina, a few days before a national election. It is a short article, but it contains all the info about the event that I could find. Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, the risk of structural failure was high." - I'm not sure what building this line is referring to, and it's not clear based on context. The building that had the gas leak?
  • What is Curto's jurisdiction? Is he a local judge in Rosario?
  • What's the current status of the trial? It's not exactly clear what the timeline is on
  • "The demonstration in Rosario was not a cacerolazo, but..." - is this referring to the demonstration organized via social media?
  • What's the current status of the location? Has the reconstruction work been completed? If not, any reasons why its behind schedule? Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence talks about the building of the explosion. The jurisdiction is a legal one, Curto recused himself because with the accumulated evidence the case was no longer among those he can work with. I have added a new sentence about recent news (the case itself, however, is still going on). The demonstration was initially intended to be a number of cacerolazos taking place in all the major cities of Argentina at the same time; as it turned out, the protest method was changed in Rosario but it was still a cacerolazo elsewhere. As for the status of the location, I have not found any report in newspapers (not even local ones) about completed buildings or delays. Cambalachero (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I added "country-wide" to the first mention of the caceralazo for clarity - see if that's ok. Are there any Wiki editors who live in the area who might be able to take a picture of the site? It wouldn't allow you to add more text, but you could at least show the state of the site as of mid-2014. If not, no big deal, it's just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • Be consistent in whether La Nación and other publications are treated as works or publishers
  • Check formatting of quote marks within titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Done Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Comments

  • In the lede, don't provide the names of the judges, save them for the main body. Especially since they investigated in succession, not all three at once.
  • Oroño and Salta Streets in central Rosario add "near the intersection of ..."
  • Translate this: CEMAR (Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario
  • , the risk of structural failure was high. suggest rewording this to: "there was a high risk of structural failure"
  • What is an "employee's cabin"?
  • Front for Victory and Progressive, Civic and Social Front candidates Add "The" at the beginning of the sentence.
  • had cheap insurances delete the 's' at the end of insurance.
  • Are there any updated info on the status of the reconstruction, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. An "employee's cabin" is a cabin used by an employee for his work. I said "insurances" in plural because multiple buildings have multiple insurances; just because most of them are cheap does not mean that they all have a single common insurance. As for the reconstruction, I have mentioned before that I found no info. Looking a bit further, I found this blog, which of course I won't use in the article, but gives more light on that lack of info: the area has been cleared of debris, and no reconstruction has been announced because there isn't any reconstruction yet. Until further notice, it is basically a vacant lot with some employees working inside; now that the explosion is not in the ongoing news headlines it would have to be a very slow news days for any actual newspaper to detail the advances in the reconstruction. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Your changes generally look good. One of the peculiarities of English is that insurances is never used, the plural becomes "insurance policies". I didn't really expect any new info on the reconstruction, but I was wondering about the judicial side of things. You need to explain "employee's cabin" in the text because this is a term not used in the US. Is it a literal cabin or some sort of temporary structure erected by the workers to shelter them from the weather?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Insurances does occur in the plural in the sense used by Cambalachero. See the OED entry. But if preferred, "insurance policies" would be fine instead, as you say. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not technically wrong, but I've never seen it used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"Cabin" in this context is not about a small house or cottage, but a small room inside the building where the employee has the tools and machines he needs for his work. In Spanish it is a "cabina", and here it seems that the English language has a similar meaning (along with others), but I'm open to suggestions. The article has been twice in the guild of copy editors and in a GAN, and none voiced any concern about the word. Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I was the second of those copy editors and probably should have picked up on this. That's a strange use of cabin. I thought it meant an outdoor workmans' cabin, such as are found on building sites, assigned to Garcia. I didn't check that particular source, and I don't know much Spanish, but the source (FN20) calls it la cabina de gas and doesn't appear to say that it belonged to Garcia. It might be better to replace "the employee's cabin" with "the store room", or even "the store room where tools were kept". --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
How about "workroom"? In my experience apartment building often have a room dedicated to maintenance, although that's used by the building engineer/supervisor, not the gas company.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: does cabina mean a room where the work is done, or just where the tools/machinery are stored? (If the former, "workshop" would be better understood by a Brit, but I don't know about AmE.) --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Changed to "Workshop" Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support & Comments Very good article and detailed coverage of the event. I only have a couple of recommendations:

  • Could you please fix the opening sentence to match the standard in other WP articles? I am aware that other disaster articles use this style, including the FA Mt. Saint Helen, but it just seems very strange.
  • Please add a "See also" section to the article.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    • What do you believe should be in this see also section? Other gas leak explosions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @MarshalN20: please could you clarify what "standard in other WP articles" you're referring to? I think the sentence conforms rather well to MOS:BOLDTITLE; see for example the example of the 2011 Mississippi River floods there. Or did you mean something other than that? --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Stfg: Something along the lines of: "The 2013 Rosario gas explosion was..." (like in San Juanico disaster, or in most other articles in Wikipedia). The current format seems like a newspaper report.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I don't think that the name should be bolded because "2013 Rosario gas explosion" is not an actual name widely used by the press, but just a descriptive name created here in Wikipedia to talk about the event. As for a "See also", I don't think it would be appropiate to include explosions that took place 20 years before (and certainly not an explosion that was not an accident but a terrorist attack). And, fortunately, this explosion is a lone case, there have not been other similar accidents in Argentina recently (if there were such cases, I would list them). The articles of other related things, such as the elections, are already mentioned and linked within the article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was about to re-edit the response to Stfg. My compete suggestion was to write something like: "The Rosario gas explosion was a major man-made disaster that occurred on August 6, 2013, and affected a residential area of Rosario, the third-largest city in Argentina." It seems less like a news report, but I understand that the current sentence is in line with the MOS.
Another question I had was why the year (2013) was important to mention in the title? Have any other significant gas explosions taken place in Rosario?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
As per WP:BOLDTITLE, links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. The rationale for this is that linking part or all of the bolded text changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The year is provided for context. One of the very first things that people will want to know in an article about an event is when did it happen. Even worldwide known events (such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) will mention that detail in the lead as soon as possible. Cambalachero (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kangana Ranaut[edit]

Nominator(s): AB01 (talk), KRIMUK90  15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

After Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan, Kangana Ranaut is one such Bollywood actress who has helped push the boundary for a Hindi film heroine in a fiercely male-dominated industry. The article has been thoroughly researched and well-sourced and I look forward to a lot of constrictive comments. Cheers! KRIMUK90  15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Just one comment for the time-being:

  • There is a category named "Actresses in Tamil cinema" - is it really necessary? I mean, she has appeared in only one Tamil film, and is unlikely to appear in anymore. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
True. Since others like Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone don't have that category either. Removed AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Brief comment. I found that the high number of (often very short) quotations in the text made it difficult to read. I suggest more paraphrasing (perhaps target a 50% cut in the number of direct quotations); readers will be thankful and there'll be more of a chance of the article passing. Also, write out all contractions (e.g., "didn't" → "did not"). EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, I think AB01 I'M A POTATO 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment EddieHugh. A lot of the quotes have now been paraphrased. -- KRIMUK90  01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


The rest of my comments:

  • The lead says, "She then played opposite Hrithik Roshan as a superwoman in the science fiction film Krrish 3 (2013)" - I think you mean that she "acted" opposite him. Also, the term "superwoman" sounds too colloquial, just like how a strong man is called "superman" even if he cannot fly or release heat vision. So can we say "mutant" instead? Because that is what the character is.
"Played opposite" is quite correct. Changed "superwoman" to "mutant". -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the URL's can be archived in order to avoid link rotting. The India Today links may very likely die, as Checklinks always tags them as "Soft 404".
Actually, that's a Checklinks error. The India Today links are the least likely to expire, as they have online articles dating back to 1998. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are some newspaper/website fields italicised and some not? Please maintain consistency.
All print sources are italicised, and online sources are not, per the formatting used in the other FAs. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Kaya, a shape-shifting mutant" - you can wikilink "shape-shifting" as it is not such a common term (I don't think many Indians know of the term, and they would refer to any Mystique-type of character as "form-changing").
Wikilinked shapeshifting. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The same paragraph reads, "The critic Sarita Tanwar reviewed" - for which newspaper/website?
Added. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote below for Dwai's comment, that there is a separate page for her filmography. And since her filmography isn't as large as Chopra's or SRK's, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting another table. -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


I can't review this FAC so deeply due to time constraints, but it does look very well written and all the statements are well sourced. Once my few comments have been addressed, this FAC has my "support". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Kailash. :) -- KRIMUK90  15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome Krimuk, and this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • "She has an elder sister, Rangoli, who now works as her manager..." Remve "now", may use as of.
Done.
  • "her grandfather, was an IAS officer" "IAS" needs to be elaborated.
Done.
  • "Ranaut who had been observing the character from a distance played the part along with " Perhaps can remove "from a distance". Also, is this info at all needed? Seems trivial.
-->We think it's important since it outlines what led to her pursuing a full-time acting career (which is shown in the next sentence)
  • "A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film" The preceding sentence is on her male role. So, do you mean the audience response to her male role playing encouraged her to move to Mumbai (it's possible to interpret in that sense due to proximity of these two sentences)?
-->Basically, a positive reaction towards her overall performance
At present it reads, "During a screening, one of the male actors went missing; Ranaut who had been observing the character played the part along with her original role of a woman. A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film". So, the audience reaction to this particular performance (in which she played two characters, one male and one female) prompted her to relocate to Mumbai? If that is what the source says, then this sentences are perfect, no need to change. I thought good audience reception of all her performances during her theatre days prompted her move!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what the source says. She relocated because the audience appreciated her in the dual roles. :) -- KRIMUK90  16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "for a four-month acting course from Asha Chandra's drama school" "from" versus "in".
Done.
  • "Ranaut later said..." when did she say?
Added.
  • The long quotation "People in the industry treated me like I didn't deserve to be spoken ..." does not have any attribution: where/when did she say so?
Added.
  • "Ranaut found support in the actor Aditya Pancholi..." need a hint of timeline -- the year/ something like "at the begiining of her struggle".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Added.
Thanks for the comments, Dwaipayanc. :) -- KRIMUK90  01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we generally avoiding table of filmography in actor articles? The Filmography, awards and nominations section in this article looks very short.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, since there is a separate article for her filmography and awards, and since her filmography isn't too large, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting new tables. What do you think> -- KRIMUK90  16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is no right or wrong way. Personally, I prefer the table available in the actor article (unless the table is huge in size). I like that because I don't have to navigate to another article to have an overall yet quick glimpse on the filmography. You don't need the awards table, of course. So, it's a matter of personal choice/preference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And that's why her most successful films are listed in the paragraph of this section. Anyway, I hope this doesn't affect the outcome of your review. :) -- KRIMUK90  02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Redtigerxyz[edit]

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole article; but only parts. Pardon me, if some of the comments are already addressed in other parts of the article. Most of what I have read looks good.

  • "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents." seems UNDUE IMO, as it is not really relevant to her career
I think it's important to show how she rebelled against what her parents wanted her to do, and establish herself on her own. It also puts into context why she was estranged from her parents. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The doctor part really doesn't reflect the sentiment. You have say that something like "against her family's wishes," she joined Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that is said later. Initial career aspirations are mentioned in other FAs such as Priyanka Chopra and Rani Mukerji too. So why not here? -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, wasn't the intention to show that she is a rebel. That is not established. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but that is established much later. This one line just talks about what her initial career aspirations were, just like engineering and psychiatry were for Chopra. -- KRIMUK90  16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Does she talk about it much; besides that interview and wikipedia mirrors. WP:LEAD says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". Is this one of them?--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I tried. Can we please have some other users commenting on this? -- KRIMUK90  05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That point is like a one-sentence summary of the Early life and background section, which talks a lot about her growing up days, education and career aspirations. So, yeah..I feel this is an important point AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz: I still maintain that this part is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ranaut's off-screen life has been the subject of extensive tabloid reporting in India." Almost every heroine has this feature. Is really needed in the lead?
Since the personal life section describes several instances of how much her relationships were covered in the Indian media, I think we need atleast one sentence in the lead to say something about it. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, disagree. Look at Angelina Jolie FA for example. No mention in lead.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jolie's article states "...relationship notable for fervent media attention". As do other FA's like Deepika Padukone. So why not mention it here? -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Messed up in a hurry what I really wanted to say last time. There is no reporting of individual media focus. Also, the Ranaut media attention pales to the scale of media frenzy over Bradangelia or even to the desi Deepika-Ranbir-Mallya.... relationships.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. How about something like "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India". One line about this needs to be mentioned in the lead, don't you think? -- KRIMUK90  16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(undent) "extensive tabloid reporting" is an overstatement for Kangana whose coverage pales to the frenzy over the Kapoors, Bachchans, Deepika etc. "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India" is stating the obvious. Page 3 media works like that in Bollywood.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments from other users on this point too. -- KRIMUK90  05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess it would be ok to remove that statement, and instead add something about how she aspires to break away from stereotypical heroine roles and do more performance-oriented roles based on women empowerment (like in Vidya Balan's article) AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz:Okay, I have removed the sentence from the lead. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Seems like POV-pushing of Ranaut; : "In a 2011 interview, Ranaut said: "Today, I have everything..."
Well, it's a direct quote. I agree that the "everything" sounds very pompous of her, but the rest of the quote acts like an apt conclusion to all the fights she had with her parents. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Beg to differ. It sounds like "They hate me, but I the magnanimous one still love me". Even "although I do a lot for my family and friends today." is her POV. A neutral observer's view saying the same will be NPOV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hence, in quotations. It's her quote, so it will obviously be from her POV. -- KRIMUK90  06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, Krimuk that it would sound incomplete without that quote. However, I've added a bit about her reconciling with her parents. I'm thinking we don't need the quote anymore. What do you say? AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I still don't think the quote was not a case of POV-pushing, but anyway, we have removed it now Redtigerxyz. -- KRIMUK90  03:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ranaut has maintained a strong connection, and makes yearly visits to her hometown of Bhambla." Seems to be overstating the fact that she makes yearly visits.
Agreed. Removed. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Redtigerxyz. Do let me know if you disagree with me on the first three arguments. -- KRIMUK90  06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Support I've given it a thorough read and copyedit and removed a few quotes. I'm happy that the article is a sound account of an actress who hasn't been around that long really. One thing though, why was it only the 2014 film which made her a leading actress of Hindi cinema? It does sound a bit OR, is it in the source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doctor. Much appreciated. :) Yup, this cited source says that Queen established her as a leading actress of Bollywood. -- KRIMUK90  09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content. Daan0001 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this comment carries no weight as is -- clearly the article does exist, and objections based on content require explanation and/or examples to be considered actionable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! The user is clearly against the nominator/article. Going with the past FLC records, it would be clear that he is a fanatic. Vensatry (ping) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The FP[edit]

Nominator(s): Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about The FP, a very inexpensive, largely unknown film that is a personal favourite of mine. The film focuses on gangs that fight using a Dance Dance Revolution knock-off, so that should set the tone for you. I've been working on this article consistently since February, and I believe it has reached FA level. The article is well-sourced, featuring many direct interviews with the filmmakers and the featurettes/commentary from the film itself. The information included is all-encompassing, noting many opinions of both the filmmakers and their critics, as well as a large amount of facts about the film. Hopefully you think it's worthy of FA status as well! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Erik (addressed)[edit]

Support. Even though this is a quirky little film, the article is well sourced, as well as being well-written, without any paraphrasing issues. The images are all free or have fair use rationales. The article is comprehensive, going into detail without straying into trivia; its tone is neutral, and the edit history shows the article's stability. The lead is a very well written summary of the article which follows, and the structure is appropriate, following the guidelines of the film project, as per WP:MOSFILM. Every item which needs to be cited, is. The editor has gone to great lengths to provide the article with appropriate pictures, and the article's length is also appropriate. User:Corvoe has done an excellent job. Onel5969 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support as meeting the FA criteria. The topic at the time of nomination was comprehensive and well-researched. I copy-edited some of the article body to clarify some sentences and asked the nominator to review some confusing passages, which are now addressed. The article is stable, and a concern of neutrality was addressed as stated above. Beyond that, the article satisfies the style guidelines (the general ones as well as MOS:FILM), and the free media used in this article is especially welcome for an article on a copyrighted work. Length is also appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from 1ST7 (addressed)[edit]

Support. Now that the above concerns have all been addressed, I believe this article meets the FA criteria and support its promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from 97198 (addressed)[edit]

Support All of the above changes have been made. Overall, it's a clearly written, thorough and well-referenced article, and IMO one that fulfils the FA criteria. Well done. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Baffle gab1978 (talk)[edit]

Just a note to tell reviewers that this article is currently undergoing a requested GOCE copy-edit by yours truly. Therefore it shouldn't be reviewed for FA status until the copy-edit is finished because the text will be subject to changes. Perhaps the reviewer(s) would consider putting the review on hold until then. The request is here. I'll inform the requester Corvoe on his/her talk page and I'll leave a note in my final edit summary when I'm finished. I'll also drop a note here if I remember. Hopefully this will be done by Tuesday night (UTC). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Gotta admit, I wasn't the c/e to start any time soon, so I felt fairly safe in nominating it :P I'm okay with putting it on hold. I suppose I could just ping everyone back here for another look through. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it might be a good idea to inform the reviewers (or just post a note here); comments above will likely be rendered obsolete by the c/e. Once it's listed on the GOCE requests page, a requested c/e can happen at any time, especially during drives and blitzes, but we usually do them within two months. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Baffle gab1978: Yeah, I probably should've removed it before nominating this, haha. Oh well. Thank you for the copy-editing! It's looking good. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now finished the copy-edit earlier than I expected; feel free to continue the FA Review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I've removed the "done" template, since WP:FAC advises against those kinds of templates (they mess with the archives). I just don't want you think I'm vandalizing your posts. Also, thank you so much! The article reads a lot better now, you've done a fantastic job! I'll be pinging everyone back to ask for their reassessment now.
@Erik:, @Onel5969:, @1ST7:, @97198:, Baffle gab1978 has finished the c/e of this article. Some of you may have issues with new phrasings or things being unclear. If you wouldn't mind taking another pass at the article and reaffirming your votes, or posting new comments for improvement, it would be very much obliged. Thank you to everyone! Corvoe (speak to me) 04:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I will take a look tomorrow. Just got home from being out of town, so I'll be resting today. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reviewed the copy-editing changes here and have no issues with it. My support still stands. And I will have to keep the {{mdash}} use in mind! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the changes. Onel5969 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
As am I -- the changes look great. 97198 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I also reaffirm my support for the article's promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note Have I missed the source review (for formatting and reliability in particular)? Graham Colm (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Graham Colm: Negative. No one has done a source review or an image review, at least not on this page. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Drakengard[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Drakengard is a single-player action role-playing video game developed by now-defunct Japanese video game developer Cavia. It was released on the PlayStation 2 on September 11, 2003 in Japan, March 2, 2004 in North America and May 21, 2004 in European territories. The title was published in Japan and North America by Square Enix and in European territories by Take-Two Interactive. A mobile port of the game was co-developed and co-published by Square Enix and Macrospace in 2004. The title is a gameplay hybrid between the beat-em-up video game series Dynasty Warriors, and the aerial combat series Ace Combat: the ground gameplay is based around hack-and-slash combat, while the aerial combat has the player fighting with a dragon. Its story and atmosphere was inspired by popular animes and movies of the day. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review by PresN[edit]

I think I've done that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Now passed. --PresN 23:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I find this article well written and all so I say Pass but I still find the sentences "The events of the fifth ending lead into Nier" and "These events lead into Drakengard 2." to be unnecessary. You aren't informing anything about the plot with that. Maybe they could be used in legacy. The reference from the lead's first paragraph should also be removed per WP:Lead since that isn't such controversional statement.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done as you suggested, plus a few little edits in the quote references for consistency. It looks much neater now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CR4ZE[edit]

Copy-edit of Gameplay/Plot done. (Coming back to do more later). Review my changes to see if you like them. Try to use "that" in place of "which", unless using ", which" as an aside. I saw switching between "players" and "the player" throughout, so I've picked "players" and kept it consistent.

  • "Angelus gains experience points and levels up through combat similar to the weapons for ground-based combat." Which is similar – experience points, leveling up or combat? Clarify.
  • "magical objects tied to a living female". Is the Goddess of the Seal literally bonded to the seals or is it a magical connection? Clarify.
  • "and the destruction of the seals ... begin destroying humanity". This sentence struck me as a bit funny. Too much "the [x]" and "and"'s, feels like there should be commas in there somewhere. (I split the sentences joined together with colons because they felt like separate clauses).
  • "During a battle with the forces of the Empire to protect Furiae, Caim is severely injured". Who is protecting Furiae? Perhaps try "Caim is severely injured while trying to protect Furiae during a battle with the forces of the Empire". I'll leave that one up to you.
  • "Encountering Angelus wounded from torture, the two agree to make a pact and save each other". Who are the two? Angelus and Caim? Do they...encounter Angelus? Clarify.
  • "Verdelet and Caim travel to each of the Seals". How many Seals are there? A small thing, but it'd help give the reader an idea of the scope of the plot.
  • "and spirits her away". What does this mean?
  • "which led to Inuart becoming jealous and easily turned against them during his captivity". Is the switch to past tense deliberate here? "easily turned against them" sounds a bit off. If "easily turned" is an adverb it should be hyphened. Otherwise, clarify.
  • I changed "Inuart manages to resurrect Furiae, turning her into a monster which kills him" but I'm still not happy with either rendition. Can you have a go at clarifying this sentence?
  • "but not before clones of her are produced to destroy humanity". Do the clones actually destroy humanity or is it just implied?
  • I've brought this up in the peer review before, but I'm still seeing a lot of "the game" or "Drakengard" in place of "it". Have a go at reworking sentences altogether so that you don't need to keep referring back. Often I find (in my own writing) you don't need to use anything because the reader always assumes you're talking about the game. (Here's a diff during Grand Theft Auto V's FAC to show you the approach I think you could take).
  • I'll leave you with that for now as it's all I've got time for, but I'll be back later to run through the rest of the article. CR4ZE (tc) 01:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Done all of the above I think. I've gone through it with a tooth-comb. Now the only references to "Drakengard" and "the game" are ones I left in there to alter it might have made the sentence look clunky or confusing. I also rewrote a few pieces so they made more sense. If there are any I've missed, please point them out. I'm determined to get that little golden star for this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit of Development/Reception/Legacy done. Thanks for getting to the above. I'm still not getting Angelus' leveling up during combat. What is similar to Caim's weapons? "Linked" is still as ambiguous as "ties" when talking about the Goddess's magical objects. What is the link/tie?

  • "who each independently created their backgrounds". They created the backgrounds of themselves or the characters? Clarify.
  • "she admitted to feeling embarrassed by her writing as the child who voice Seere and Manah spoke her lines". I was going to try to fix this, but I have no idea what it means.
  • "in contrast to the likes of Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy". What is the relevance of the comparison here? Is it something the journalist writing the article found or a goal set out by the developers? Clarify.
  • "everything [felt] like it was coming together in the best possibly way". What was coming together? Perhaps paraphrase or remove this part of the quote.
  • Should western be capitalised? I could be wrong on this.
  • "In addition to this, some of the more mature themes, such as references to sexual taboos, were censored in the western localization". This is really interesting. Is there more to develop on this point? What was censored and why?
  • The bit about the mobile phone still feels a little tacked-on. Perhaps you could move it to the end of the paragraph and mention Macrospace as its developer (then the bit about PS2 tips). That might fit better. And you'd lose the need to have the footnote in the infobox, too.
  • "composition"→"being composed". A fix I made that I just thought I'd bring your attention to for future. "Composition" really only works as a noun.
  • "By the end of 2003, it had sold 241,014 copies in the region". Check the source here to make sure it's referring to sold-through not sold-in. I'm not sure if you're Japanese or even speak the language, but check just to be sure.
  • Following from that, I still feel like getting some commentary beyond just a review score from Japanese reviewers is missing. Are you certain you've done everything you can to get your hands on the Famitsu review? Have you asked at jawp? Have you tried online archives? It'd be really additive to the entire section to have some analysis from a native reviewer.
  • "IGN's Jeremy Dunham called it the game's "biggest strength", praising the edgy themes the game explored, the balance between fantasy and the realistic world and character design, and the multiple parallels with Neon Genesis Evangelion". I started to fix this messy sentence but it still needs more work. Too much "and". Perhaps there's three-sentences' material in this?
  • "saying it seemed to surpass other RPGs produced by Square Enix at the time". Sexy sibilance, sir, if a little kitsch. "saying it seemed" is a bit awkward. Is it the "maturity and wit of the dialogue" or the "unfolding plot" that surpasses RPGs?
  • I was going to rework the Reception by removing the topic sentences and reducing some of those heavy sentences. I think the former comes down to preference, but I would like you to run through Reception and make sure you keep sentences as concise as possible. Would you like to have a try? It's just off reaching the "brilliant" criteria.
  • "Hardcore Gamer's Jahanzeb Khan spoke favorably referred to it as a precursor". Probably a typo here but didn't know how to fix it. What is the "it" in this sentence? I know I said above to reduce "the game" and "Drakengard" but be very careful because the previous sentence has a different subject that could be the "it" of the following. Clarify.

That's it from me. Not too much work needed. You're basically there. CR4ZE (tc) 12:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: I really have tried my very best to address the issues. The Reception section was inspired by the structure of Final Fantasy XIII-2. I've tried to do some clarification, alteration and correction, and removed quotes where needed. As to Japanese reviews, the ones that are there are the ones that I found after searching through tons of internet fodder. Without a fluent knowledge of written Japanese and the original magazine in my hand, I can't do anything more. I realize that I may have missed something, or several somethings, but I've done my very best. Every single article concerned with the Drakengard series has provided this kind of difficulty. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Support on prose then. My suggestion (for this and other Drakengard articles) is that you ask at jawp and see if there's someone there who could lend a hand. I'm sure you'd be forgiven if you spoke to them with Google Translate. Otherwise, the reviews you have now will do. Your changes look good. The minor cleanups to Reception work for me. I think the entire family of Drakengard-related articles looks great, so I encourage you to take the entire topic all the way. CR4ZE (tc) 15:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

As I promised.

  • I've made a few small prose fixes.
  • Is it appropriate to make a comparison to other franchises in the Gameplay body at all?
  • It's GameSpot, not Gamespot.
  • "Each a four-level cap." - Each has a four-level cap? Each four-level cap does something?
  • "living female" - Living female what? Human? You can just go with "woman", "girl", or something of the like, then.
  • "with her believing" - I'd prefer "including the belief"
  • "Furiae stabs herself" - I'd add "non-fatally"
  • "epics from Asia" - Epic... poems? Epic prose? Epic films?
  • "role-playing game" - To clarify, do you mean "role-playing video game"?
  • Speaking of which, why isn't "action role-playing game" said once in Gameplay?
  • Northern Europe should be linked.
  • Prince, however, shouldn't.
  • "Though citing" - Grammatical?
  • Why is the Japanese coverart used, especially since it doesn't even share the North American title?

And... that should be it. Tezero (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: I think I've got it all sorted. Your opinion, please? --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Sorry, I caught this yesterday but got distracted before I could pin up my vote. I believe this article passes the FA criteria and am happy to help it along its way. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It appears well written, thorough, images few and properly justified, sources are reliable and well regarded. It will serve as a good start for a Drakengard Featured Topic! Great work as always. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • It was published in Japan and North America by Square Enix and in European territories by Take-Two Interactive. It was released on September 11, 2003 in Japan, on March 2, 2004 in North America, and on May 21, 2004 in Europe. - I have the feeling that you could merge these two sentences easily
    • Looking at the lead, there are too many sentences starting with "It" or "Its"; very repetitiitititive
    • I'd introduce the chapters and verses as levels before going into the mechanics, otherwise the exact definition of "Level" is not clear
    • The structure of the first paragraph of #Gameplay is rather odd. It goes from Gameplay, Definition of Levels, to Gameplay. I'd have the levels with levels and the gameplay mode information with other such information.
    • a full-screen map can be switched to that covers the entire area and shows mission objectives - I'd rework this to avoid the dangling participle ("can be switched to")
  • Link some gaming terms for casual readers, such as world map --> world map etc.
  • Your link to "Levels" (Level (video gaming)) is about the "verses" in this game rather than actual weapon levelling (that would be at Experience_level#Level-based_progression). I suggest massaging the text a bit to allow links to both articles.
  • The soundtrack was originally released in two volumes under the names Drag-On Dragoon Original Soundtrack Vol.1 and Drag-On Dragoon Original Soundtrack Vol.2. They were released on October 22 and November 21, 2003 respectively. - This could also be merged without any problems
  • years later - when?
  • The characters' stories were created by Yoko, Shiba and Iwasaki, who each independently created the character backgrounds. - Did they all individually develop backgrounds for each character, or were they each given certain characters to go over?
  • The paragraph starting "The characters' stories" leaps from characters to overall to characters again.
  • You should probably find a way to cut down on the frequency of then- and "at the time". Obviously this is in the past tense, so some of it is redundant.
  • novel adaptions - novelisations / novelizations is also correct, and perhaps a less tortured construction
  • More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I've done some work on it. I rearranged the gameplay and development sections, though the latter may need a rewrite. I also did my best looking for excessive use of "it"s and past-tense wording. I also did some more trimming with commas and merging some sentences. Plus, a minor correction and some clarification concerning who created the characters. It's very difficult when you're working almost exclusively from Japanese. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You repeat "in Japan", "in X", etc. a lot in #Reception. Finding a way to cut that down would help
  • Game Informer were - I believe in AmE this would be "Game Informer was"
I've just done these. Thanks. Everything helps. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Last comment from me: any coverage of the mobile phone port? You mention in the lead and in passing, but don't actually give much information about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If I had found anything more on the mobile version, I would have put it in. That's the main gap in the article, and it's a gap that can't be plugged. And I did a minor grammar fix in the lead. I know it uses an "it", but it was the only way I could make the sentence work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • French, German, anything? We don't even have a release date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing. Zip. Nada. I've looked, and on top of that the Square Enix Mobile references are dead and don't exist on any reputable archiving sites. So we either keep what there is and admit that there are gaps or delete it from the article. There is nothing there but what I and others found and could use. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

HMS Indefatigable (R10)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The aircraft carrier Indefatigable was one of the last pair of six armoured carriers built by the Royal Navy during World War II. These two ships had their design modified by the Royal Navy to carry more aircraft at the expense of reduced armour. She was not completed until 1944 and her aircraft attacked the German battleship Tirpitz several times before she was transferred to the Pacific to support the American invasion of Okinawa and attack targets in the Japanese Home Islands in 1945. After the war she helped to repatriate troops and ex-PoWs home before she was placed in reserve. The ship was recommissioned in 1950 to serve as a training carrier for the Home Fleet until she was again reduced to reserve in the mid-1950s and sold for scrap. The article passed a thorough MilHist A-class review last month and should be in pretty good shape. I believe that everything is in BritEng and trust that reviewers will spot any remaining examples of AmEng as well as any infelicitous prose so that I can fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Several of the references' pages overlap or could be combined. See for instance refs 19 & 21, 37 & 41, 47 & 48 & 49 among others. Perhaps it would also be best to merge footnotes such as 44 to something like Hobbs 2011, pp. 261-67 as the page range is still relatively small. There is also some inconsistency in the years in the footnotes: you have the style Sturtivant (1984), yet you also have the style Hobbs 2013. More consistency here is needed generally. But on the positive side the article seems to be well written and comprehensive at first glance, but unfortunately I don't have time for a full length review. JZCL 17:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for noting the problem with inconsistent usage of the parentheses. I can't combine the cites as you'd like as they're either in separate paragraphs or have information from a different source separating them. If you get more time, feel free to come back and look it over more thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean - as an example I have combined refs 47 and 48 because they literally overlapped. It's perfectly acceptable to have the same reference in separate paragraphs, so I don't quite understand what you're saying. JZCL 13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • And I've undone it because the first paragraph didn't contain any material from McCart after p. 157. I see no virtue in excessively consolidating cites. That's certainly not how it's done in academia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:HMS_Indefatigable_(R10).jpg: source link returned error
    • Fixed.
  • File:Indefatigable-_Turnbull_lib_1_4-020662-F.jpg: what was creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The file says 1955. Thanks for looking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments looks like another fine effort.
Lede
  • "joining the American forces" I would strike "the" as surplus
Body
  • It is a bit ambiguous as to which class was part of the 1938 Programme. It may be worth mentioning that the 1938 Programme was part of the rearmament programme to meet the international situation under the Chamberlain government.
  • I would reverse the order of the two clauses in this sentence, "To remain ..."
  • "By the end of the war" I would add "in September 1945" (or whatever date you prefer)
  • "based on the radars fitted aboard the Illustrious-class carrier Victorious late in the war." this is ambiguous. Do you mean the radars were based on those you mention, or do you mean the fact that Victorious was fitted with these means that this ship was also likely fitted with the same radars?
  • "were either 1.5 inches (38 mm) or 2 inches (51 mm)." another ambiguity. Do you mean it was one or the other, or that it ranged between the two of them, depending on where on the vessel?
  • "King George VI inspected the ship, and the ground crews embarked for 820, 887, 894 and 1770 Squadrons" ambiguous. Does it mean the King inspected the ground crews, or that the ground crews embarked, or some combination?
  • "The Seafires claimed to have shot down four of the Zeros but probably shot down four," I don't quite see the discrepancy.
  • "She departed three days later for Manus en route to Sydney. The ship arrived there" Manus or Sydney?
  • "22 August to prepare for sea. The ship arrived at Devonport to begin the necessary modifications on 30 July" I think this is out of chronological order, so a "had arrived" may be more appropriate as a verb.
  • "The Admiralty announced on 26 January 1954 that Indefatigable and her sister" the last four words could probably be summarised as "both ships"
  • "This had no short-term impact on her activities" you are describing the actions of both ships, it's a bit odd to mention only the one for this one sentences. If the sister ship also kept going in the short term, suggest "This had no immediate effect on their activities"Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that I've addressed all of these. See if they clarify the issues that you raised. Many thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • The specifics of the Implacable-class ships' radar suite are not fully known. I would add a specific citation for this fact if you think its important; considering the specifics in the article you probably could delete it.
  • The specifics are probably in the archives somewhere, but they're not available in any published source that I have available. I have detailed data only for a few of the systems that they mounted and I don't want readers to think that the others that I name there are confirmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The pennant number is cited as 10 vs. R10 in the article name. I would think the latter would be preferred since that's how some other British carriers are named - either way, it should be consistent, right now R10 isn't cited. Kirk (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No source that I have gives postwar pennant numbers so I can't cite it. I do cite its wartime pennant number which was simply "10". I'd prefer to delete the pennant number entirely from the article name and use launch year as most ship articles, but I gather that there was some sort of movement to use pennant numbers, no matter how confusing, instead of launch years for British ships that had them some years back and I'd need to establish a new consensus to do so, which isn't imminent. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, but it reads like one of the citations says it, I meant to cite that fact specifically. I guess your opinion is ok, maybe someone else has a suggestion. The use of pennant number in the article title is unusual and was personally confusing - it took me a while to figure out what 'R' was. I agree replacing pennant with year is more of a project question than a FA one. Kirk (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Recusing myself from coordinator duties here to comment, as I have a FAC open myself right now. I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR and have gone over the changes since I last looked at the article. Tweaked a couple of things this time round and have the following queries:

  • "Based on the radars fitted aboard the Illustrious-class carrier Victorious late in the war, the ships probably carried Type 279 and Type 281B early-warning radars." -- Sturm, is this your own observation based on lack of cited specifics about this class and knowledge of specifics of other classes, or has one or more of your sources explicitly stated that they don't know but suspect this was the case?
    • Nobody actually discusses the full radar suite of this ship; only a few systems are specifically mentioned in various sources. The comparison with Victorious is my own since she's about the only one of the six armoured carriers for whom I can find a full listing as for the time when Indefatigable was completed. Hence the "probably". This may be borderline OR, but I don't want readers to think that the listed systems were the only ones she had.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Not easy, is it? I guess even saying the radar systems are not fully known (or "available") could be considered borderline OR, since in WP terms, how can you be certain all the data isn't available unless an RS says it isn't...? ;-) Well, I can wear that, but I wonder if we might be able to drop the "probably" and recast the Victorious comparison... Something like "Victorious, one of the Illustrious-class ships upon which Indefatigable's design was based, also carried carried Type 279 and Type 281B early-warning radars"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That will do, although the information is probably available in the National Archives, but not published anywhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sources disagree about the thickness of this armour. Historians David K. Brown, H. T. Lenton, and Norman Friedman believe that it was probably only 1.5 inches thick, but many other sources give 2 inches." You cite three sources for the first contention and three for the second, so I'm not sure if the second constitutes "many other sources" or simply "other sources"...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I dropped the many, although I could probably find more sources that say they had 2 inches rather than 1.5, but I don't really think that it's worth the effort to do so. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • FTR, as well as looking at prose, detail, structure and image licensing at MilHist ACR, I gave the citations/sources a scan for formatting/reliability and I don't think there's been significant change there so happy to offer support for FA -- that said, a thorough source review by Brian or Nikki may reveal things I missed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) & Wee Curry Monster

This article is about the Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic, proximate to the eastern coast of South America. The article is written in British English. The article is highly controversial, but editors from all sides of the spectrum have worked together in order to create what is one of the best country articles in Wikipedia (We hope the reviewers agree). The article has had a recent peer review and, since its conclusion, no major changes have taken place for quite some time (the only recent issue were dead links to UK government information, but those were promptly fixed). If the reviewers find any problems with the article, whether major or minor, we hope that they give us a chance to fix those mistakes prior to them casting a decision on whether to pass or decline this FAC. Thank you for your time. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading through all of your improvement suggestions, I notice the trend is in favor of adding more about the significant economic development (and demographic changes) of the Falklands during the 20th century. I will do my best to attain the goals, but I will probably need a few days to read and include thoughtful information in the history section. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ranger Steve[edit]

I’ve just been reading up on the Battle of the Falklands and came across this FAC. I’m going to be offline for a few days, but will give a review when I get back. In the meantime though, I have some observations that could help improve the article:

  • History: This reads more like a summary of the territorial disputes that have dogged the Falklands for centuries. Obviously that’s important, but I think the section is too heavily weighted to that element now. For instance, there’s room to expand the pre-European history (currently one sentence). There’s no mention of the Ross Expedition, or the reason for the Falkland’s importance as a port, its coaling station or the famous ships recovered from the harbour.
  • “resulted in a British victory over imperial Germany” and “resulted in the Royal Navy's victory over the Kriegsmarine.” Needs rewording; these battles did not result in victory over the entirety of Imperial Germany or the Kreigsmarine.
  • Come to think of it, why is the River Plate mentioned as being ‘near’ the archipelago? The battle took place over 1,000 miles away from the islands. This needs clarifying and the exact contribution of the islands to the battle explained (ie. the repairs to Exeter).
  • Geography: Quite short, is there room for expansion. Also, why are the lat and long approximate?
  • Climate: Even shorter. Three sentences doesn’t seem much for an FA – could it not have its own section, some more averages and extremes, and maybe even a climate graph that I see on other articles?
  • Tourism: Currently only dealt with in one word (repeated), but not clarified in any way; could this not be expanded (ie. to clarify the island’s role in cruise liner tours)?

Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Steve, thank you very much for the comments.
My only major disagreement is with the history suggestion. The reason the territorial dispute is so prominent in the history of the islands is because that is, truly, the most remarkable aspect of its history. This and other sections are deliberately short per WP:SUMMARY. The islands have no significant "pre-European history". The Ross Sea party featured article only mentions the Falklands once. Ships recovered from the harbor falls more on the realm of nautical archaeology, but not a summary history of the state. Nonetheless, the fifth paragraph could certainly be improved in order to show the islands' significance as a port.
I can certainly address most of the other suggestions, but I'd like to point out once more that sections and information are summarized per WP:SUMMARY. In other words, I will not include climate charts or expand sections just to make the article bigger. I believe in the policy's intent that short, summarized reference articles are more likely to be read than long ones; readers looking for specific or specialized content can then follow the wikilinks into articles that are focused on their topic of interest (such as Climate of the Falkland Islands).
There appears to be two trends in the country article FACs, one that follows a long model (such as Germany) and another that follows WP:SUMMARY (such as Peru). Arguably, both states have long histories that can fill up a myriad pages of information, but I find the article on Peru to be far more readable than Germany.
I hope my positions makes sense. I mean absolutely no disrespect and look forward to your review and further suggestions.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I am currently reading up on Falklands tourism, so I may take some time to respond (perhaps a day). Nonetheless, I may add information about recovered ships in the tourism part. "Wreck diving" also seems to have a role in this story. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to add to the article in order to make it longer. However, I am looking for balance, and I think it's a bit lacking in this article. I appreciate you've gone for a shorter 'summary' style article, but the problem I see is that the sovereignty dispute content looks more like it's come from a long model. I realise that in most sources, the sovereignty is the main focus of attention, but I don't think that should mean this article places excessive weight on it, whilst leaving other sections under-represented. I'm afraid I can't support the article with its current weighting.

History section:

  • I think more than half a sentence could be allocated to Pre European history; it gets its own section in the history article after all.
  • The section in the history article is filled with contradictory information. There simply is no significant pre-European history in the Falklands.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, there's no recorded history. I'm not asking for much, just a better presentation of the several tens of thousands of years before Europeans arrived. If there is no evidence of significant history or archaeology, that can be better stated than a vague possibility of previous settlement which appears to be used purely to introduce the second half of that sentence (ie that the islands were uninhabited in the 16th century). Ranger Steve Talk 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's impossible to do a presentation of "tens of thousands of years" about a pile of rocks in the ocean. The only kind of notable archaeology in the Falklands is nautical; everything else is vague. It is what it is. The archipelago's history, as far as world history is concerned, begins in the 16th century.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 read almost like a list of claims, and the prose is a bit wanting. This could easily be fleshed out with some more details to make it more of a social history. For instance, why did France surrender its claim in 1776 (and the same with the Spanish and British departures)? There's little sense of explanation behind the actual events, which contributes to the sense that it is a just history of disputes.
  • I added a paragraph about the Spanish and British settlements, and their reasons for departing the archipelago. Is this along the lines of what you have in mind?--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What does "the island's status was again undisputed" actually mean? The context isn't that clear in the preceding paragraph.
  • WCM's addition definitely improves matters, but it needs a copyedit and referencing.
  • I'm not sure what has happened to WCM, but I improved the section and took out unnecessary details.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry been on holiday, I'm also travelling a lot with work. WCMemail 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • General prose: A lot of small sentences could be merged to improve the readability (ie. In 1990, the UK and Argentina "normalised" diplomatic relations. In 1998, Argentine president Carlos Menem, in a letter to Falklanders, "called for reconciliation 'to heal old wounds'").
  • Considering I am the primary author of the text, I cannot find those "small sentences" you point out. I will, however, address this one you point out. If there are any others, please do feel free to edit them as you see fit.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • After the First and Second World War paragraph, the history returns almost exclusively to sovereignty issues. What about the evolution of the settlements? When was Stanley proclaimed the capital for instance? When was the airfield built? Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Addressed. Stanley was capital since 1845. Airfield was built in 1972. The sovereignty dispute takes precedence at this point in all sources.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1840 the Falklands became a Crown colony, and a governor and Scots subsequently established an official pastoral settlement." Could you clarify the Scots bit? At first I thought i was an individual's name, but I presume it's Scottish settlers. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Possibly the most notable event in the island's history (the war) is dealt with in one sentence. I think this requires a touch more expansion. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What else is relevant to add about it? The war only lasted about a couple of months. I find no reason to make two months worth of history into anything longer than sentence.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • But this is in stark contrast to your comments about reflecting the literature on the topic. I can't believe that the most notable event in the island's history is not the most notable in sources on the Falklands. The casualty figures, the effect on the Argentine government and the fact the war left 20,000 landmines on the island strike me as the sort of details worthy of inclusion. Ranger Steve Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Those points you mention are the consequences of the war, but not the war itself. The landmines and reaction of the Argentine government (as it concerns the Falklands) can be included. Casualty figures are best suited for war articles. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty Dispute

  • Here things tend to re-tread the content of the history section, but with some new facts. Despite the two sentences I've given above about 're-healing', we now find out that in fact, in 1994, "Argentina promulgated a new constitution claiming the Falkland Islands". As well as clarifying what this actually means, I really would be inclined to make the history section more social, and put anything to do with claims and sovereignty in this section.
  • You don't seem to notice that the "re-healing" statement happened four years after the 1994 event. I am currently moving (and removing) things around both of these areas. The "history" section of the article is not going to focus on "social history". Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That was my point; there were two chronologies of the same subject in two sections, each containing different information. The original two sentences in the history section might have suggested a warming of relationships, but then the reader finds out later that there was a significant cooling in between those two dates. It's much better to have one chronology of these disputes. Regardless of where the dispute chronology goes, there will need to be some social history in the history section though. Ranger Steve Talk 10:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the balance has been lost in summarising too much. I've opened up a section for discussion on the talk page. WCMemail 10:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • With reference to balance again, why does a journalist's comment matter in a summary style article? Surely the final sentence in this paragraph demonstrates the islander's opinions clearly enough by itself. This is one of the details that I think makes the sovereignty content too long relative to the rest of the article.
  • Addressed. Section is now only two paragraphs, with only essential material.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Geography

  • Balance again. Why two paragraphs for geography but only three sentences for climate? As I said, I don't want you to expand it just to make the article longer, but we get so much information on the geography and little on the weather. This sense of imbalance is further evidenced in the fact that we get two sentences on the resident's cake, tea and chatting habits in the culture section.
  • The balance argument does not really apply here, specially a comparison between culture and climate. Regardless, I added some information and made climate its own paragraph.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "East Falkland houses Stanley (the capital and largest city)". Is Stanley a city? This sentence also implies that there are other cities on the Falklands. Some consistency is also required; Stanley is referred to as Port Stanley in other sections. Ranger Steve Talk 16:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • According to the cited source, Stanley is the capital and largest city. There's a whole list of other locations in the islands that can be found at List of settlements in the Falkland Islands. "Port Stanley" is another common name for Stanley (there is nothing wrong or confusing about using it). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's cited as a city that's fine, but I think you've misunderstood my other points. Surely there aren't any other cities on the Falklands, but by saying that Stanley is the largest city, it implies there are other, smaller ones. I didn't say that Port Stanley was confusing or wrong, but I expect consistency in an FA (I would not expect to find Beijing and Peking used interchangeably in a China article for instance). Ranger Steve Talk 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There's not much I can do about it; I can't find a source that examines cities in the Falkland Islands. Maybe the reason is that there are no true cities, but I can't guess. All I can affirm is that the cited source specifically states that Stanley is the "capital and largest city" in the Falklands. Also, the naming between "Port Stanley" and "Stanley" is not as disparate as "Beijing" and "Peking". I could understand your second point if I was using the name "Puerto Argentino" to refer to Stanley, but that's not the case.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but there really is plenty you can do about it. Let's be honest - there are no other cities on the Falklands (I'm not convinced by Stanley, but I'll let it slide as it's the capital). So don't include a sentence that implies otherwise. We aren't require to slavishly follow sources, especially when they're clearly incorrect on the matter. Regarding Port Stanley, once again this is an FAC; please pick one option and be consistent per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Geographical_items. Ranger Steve Talk 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We can't conduct original research. At no point does the article indicate that there are other cities in the Falklands. The sentence that states Stanley is "the capital and largest city" does not imply anything beyond what it states (it neither affirms nor denies the existence of other cities in the archipelago). Please read some of the literature ([20]). Some sources alternatively refer to it as the "primate city". I understand that this is an FA review, but neither of us can create information from our own personal conclusions. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It does imply there are other cities, by virtue of the use of a superlative that compares one thing with another (in this case cities). To use a different example, we shouldn't say "the sun is the largest star in our solar system", because we cannot compare it with another star in the solar system - there isn't one. If you won't change it, then I feel obliged to ask for reliable sources (not the ones you've linked to) stating that there are other cities. At the moment, the grammar is wrong. Ranger Steve Talk 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The question you ask of me would be the same as me asking you to provide a source that backs up your position. Neither case can be done because nobody has written anything about it. Maybe it's because there are no cities in the Falklands, or maybe it's because nobody cares. All I know is that the sources call Stanley "the largest city". Regardless, I changed the "largest city" to "only city". Is this good?--MarshalN20 Talk 01:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Would "capital and largest settlement" work better? This is pretty unarguable (there are definitely other settlements and they're definitely smaller). It's worth noting that Stanley, Falkland Islands never uses the word "city", preferring "town". Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks - either one of these changes is fine. Sorry to have to have gone on about this, but the sentence was just wrong, grammatically and factually, as it was before. Ranger Steve Talk 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More to follow as I work my way down. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Etymology

  • Perhaps its worth a note to explain the preponderance of the term 'Falklands' as a name, given that it's an unusual pluralisation of the name and is widely used in the article. Ranger Steve Talk 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay. I added a note of it into the text. I don't consider it needs a reference since it is pretty much common knowledge.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


@Ranger Steve: WCM and I have addressed everything that we could from your recommendations. The only major point we have not managed to address is the suggestion to expand the pre-history of the archipelago, but this is only because archaeological research has yet to produce more conclusive information on the topic. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, we hope that future editors will be able to expand on this part of the article. We also hope that you find the article's current state as acceptable, and would appreciate to know your position (support or oppose) assuming there is nothing else left to address. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

Support My comments are now all addressed. Nice work to MarshalN20 and all the other editors involved in developing this article to its current standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Source Review by Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the infobox details (like Hugo) don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • Addressed. I also removed citations of some infobox details, specifically those not also sourced in other FAs like Peru and Germany.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • MercoPress: you're sometimes italicizing, sometimes linking, sometimes neither. Be consistent - no italics, pick a linking style.
  • Addressed. All italicized.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FN4: should identify work
  • Use the loc parameter for short cites to chapters/sections instead of pages
  • FN25, 45, 115: page formatting
  • Why is one Factbook ref a full citation in footnotes while others are short cites?
  • Not sure what you mean, but I think to have addressed it.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
  • FN62: formatting
  • FN64: missing italics
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Naval-history.net?
  • The first source is no longer used in the article. The second source, published by Naval-history.net, is widely regarded as a reliable source.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: The Smith source (from Naval-history.net) was only being used once for a minor detail. For the sake of avoiding disagreement, I removed it from the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FN79: formatting
  • Be consistent in when you include accessdate
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Lesser-known locations or places that have the same name (eg. Cambridge) should include state or country
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for journals
  • Johnson: given link includes full citation details at the top
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Hamiltonstone[edit]

That's about it. I'm a support once these are sorted.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Andrew Gray[edit]

  • A little late, but I can't see anything else I know to be inaccurate (though there's bound to be something!). Happy to support on content, though I'd still advise dropping the "ranking" numbers for economic statistics as noted below. "Culture" feels a little weak but not sure what else should be added as distinctively Falkland. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Andrew! I plan on improving other country articles in the future. If during that time I find anything new (for content ideas), I will certainly add it to this article; this goes for both culture and economics. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

cm[edit]

Neat article but it has a couple of issues:

  • "is ranked the 222nd largest in the world by GDP" => this is so confusing! The islands are NOT a country, so putting them in a rank among countries is at least baffling. A more appropriate method would be to give the actual figure, then say that this figure is similar to that of country X which ranks on position y among independent countries.
  • What is being ranked is the economy (economic system) of the state. The islands are not a sovereign state; its sovereignty is disputed between Argentina and the UK, but that doesn't mean the Falklands are not a state. "Country" is an ambiguous term that can refer to both sovereign (independent) and non-sovereign states, so the confusion is understandable. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would agree that these rankings are confusing and don't really tell us anything meaningful (both within the infobox and the running text; in the infobox they're worse, as they link to lists on which the Falklands aren't rated). I would strongly suggest dropping them in favour of a direct comparison (eg "the GDP is comparable to that of Norway"). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't a direct comparison all the more complicated? I'd like to think that our readers know about the GDP of Norway, or at least know that Norway is a country in Europe, but that's (quite sadly) not the case. Most individuals are going to find it easier to understand "222nd" as an "oh, that's very down the ladder". I also don't think that the lack of information from one article (specially a non-featured list) should impact a decision in this other article. If anything, the information of the incomplete article should be improved. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that "222nd" really tells us anythingwithout having to go into a lot more detail explaining (222nd of how many, for example - 225 or 250 or 300?). "The GDP of the Falklands is xxx; on a per-capita basis, this is yyyy, comparable to that of Norway, among the world's richest countries" would give us the numbers and some context in a simpler fashion. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • a strange thing is that although this is part of the UK, there is no comparison to other parts of the UK or its dependencies; how does the economy compare to other parts of the crown holdings?
  • This is something that should be addressed in the article British Overseas Territories, and not in the article about the Falkland Islands.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, according to the BOT article, the Falklands are not part of the UK (they are administered by it).--MarshalN20 Talk 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • he least-populated territory in South America => really? I bet that there are some Andes or Amazonia parts that have less population. can you quantify this with respect to subdivisions of SAm countries? or at least say that it is less populated than any of the independent SAm countries
  • Sure! Addressed. I changed "territory" to "state".--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • is there an agreement of some sort with regards to the territorial waters delimitation. if not is there a de facto border?

Nergaal (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Very good question. I'm sure Wee Curry Monster knows more about this than me, but I will give it a look.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Andrew up above provided a link with maps. I can't find anything on an agreement with Argentina. I think Andrew's link indicates that there is a de facto border. I will add that into the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no agreement, Argentina refuses to recognise the Falklands EEZ and has attempted to sell fishing rights and oil rights inside it. Practically, the Falklands EEZ is respected by commercial entities in the South Atlantic as the Falklands EEZ is policed by a Fisheries Protection vessel permanently deployed there. WCMemail 09:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Note -- I can see above that you've pinged RangerSteve re. your responses to his comments. Has anyone completed an image review? If not, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC

I've just run through these (there's only a dozen or so). All look good except:

2013 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an interesting hurricane season. For the first time since 1994, there were no major hurricanes in the Atlantic. Further, this season had the fewest hurricane since 1982. Chantal was one of the fastest moving tropical cyclones in the deep tropics since the satellite era began. Hurricane Humberto almost became the latest first hurricane of the season since satellite monitoring started in the 1960s. Later in September, Hurricane Ingrid caused catastrophic flooding in Mexico with Hurricane Manuel in the Pacific. Tropical Storm Karen threatened the Gulf Coast during the U.S. government shutdown. Additionally, one tropical cyclone formed in November and another in December, which did not occur even in the 2012 season. I have worked a lot on this article so that it includes this information and much more; I also have attempted to make it consistent with FAC standards. Finally, this will be a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: 12george1. 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 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Image review - Images are okay. All are either from NASA directly or plots of courses by Wikipedians based on NASA maps. Sources are all indicated clearly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Juliancolton[edit]

Comments – it's certainly rare to see the articles of very recent seasons in such good shape, but I do think there's room for improvement. Some suggestions:

  • A solid third of the intro discusses seasonal predictions, a relatively minor aspect of the season as a whole. Predictions for a past event are pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and the whole paragraph is basically a list of dates and numbers. Since the lead aims to provide an accessible overview of the topic at hand, I would suggest trying to boil all the hard info down into a more digestible summary—something that says forecasts started out aggressive but were generally adjusted downward at halftime. Now, as for what the lead lacks: I'd like to see more emphasis on how the season inexplicably defied everybody's predictions and sent the long-range forecasting community into a frenzy. That's what the season is invariably remembered for in weather circles.
  • Are you asking for less predictions and more analysis on why the season defied every ones predictions?--12george1 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Something like that, yeah. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite the revisions, activity remained far below predictions, at thirteen named storms, two hurricanes, and no major hurricanes. – 13 named storms is technically true, but I think you should figure out a way to account for the unnamed SS (especially since the infobox says 14 for total storms).
  • 13 tropical storms?--12george1 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see this discussed anywhere, but I think it's important to note that due to their bust, Gray and Klotzbach were defunded and nearly forced to end their seasonal forecasts.
  • I know this is a point of contention, but I believe the article suffers for having had the by-storm ACE table removed.
  • I am not going to take any action on this until there is an actual debate about this.--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Nine consecutive subsections start with "A tropical wave", which is a bit disconcerting. That said, after the first couple instances where you demonstrate that waves enter the Atlantic via Africa, I don't think you need to keep repeating the whole geographic spiel (eg. Karen, Lorenzo).
  • Fixed some of the "a tropical wave"'s, but not the geographical thing, as I am not understanding why that is it a problem or even how to fix them.--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess it just seems tedious to have to read "A tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa" at the beginning of a dozen subsections. After the first couple instances of easterly wave-induced genesis, everybody has been told where the waves come from and how they've come upon the Atlantic. An excellent seasonal page should present itself as a smoothly flowing article instead of simply a monotonous compilation of individual storms. In that regard I think the nominated article is a bit lacking. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The 'Storm names' section starts with The following names will be used for named storms that form in the North Atlantic in 2013 (emphasis mine). Are you sure the entire article is up-to-date?

Additionally, the prose is a bit rough in places. I'm not sure it's worth posting a laundry list of specific tasks, so after you've addressed the above comments I'll see what I can do in terms of copyediting. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Update
  • Five tornadoes were spawned in the area, one of which damaged three homes. - the misplaced modifier here is enough to cause disruption in the flow of the text. There are several instances of the same problem throughout the article; I'll list a couple of the more prominent ones.
  • where heavy rainfall triggered flooding that damaged 60 homes and affected 300 people. - does this mean the 60 damaged buildings were collectively home to 300 people?
  • I think I am just going to remove "and affected 300 people" because I don't understand what that means either.--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In El Salvador, flooding caused one fatality, while another occurred after a person was struck by lightning. - needlessly cumbersome. "In El Salvador, flooding and lightning caused one fatality each." ?
  • A large-amplitude tropical wave emerged into the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa on July 4. - "large-amplitude" is quite technical (and unoriginal, seeing as it's repeated verbatim from the TCR). Surely there's a more commonly understood description to use.
  • Removing "-amplitude", since the sentence basically means that same thing without it.--12george1 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Dominican Republic, there was one direct death when a firefighter from the community of Maimon was killed as he was swept away by flood waters when he tried to clear a drain. - quite a mouthful.
  • I removed the "there was one direct death when" because there is no need to mention a death twice.--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The remnants of Chantal combined with a surface front, producing locally heavy rainfall and gusty winds over northeastern Florida. - I think Chantal is given too much credit here. The source suggests high PWATs from the system aided in the diurnal convective initiation along the frontal boundary. I wouldn't aim for excessive detail, but I do think Chantal's role in the FL weather can be more accurately explained.
  • A tropical wave, accompanied by an elongated area of low pressure - a tropical wave is an elongated area of low pressure. The same issue is also present in the sections for Dorian and Gabrielle. I know their respective TCRs use the same wording, but it's still confusing to the casual reader who only vaguely knows the definition of a tropical wave.
  • Three days later, another tropical wave, which spawned Tropical Storm Erin, also emerged into the Atlantic. - just clunky.
  • Classes in the state were closed during the storm's passage. - at what sorts of institutions?
  • Apparently it was at "all educational levels."--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would try to incorporate that into the article, then. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In Oaxaca, another fatality took place after a man was swept away by a swollen river. - overly verbose. In general I think you should avoid the "a fatality took place/occurred after x" syntax.
  • Upon crossing the Lesser Antilles and entering the Caribbean Sea, another tropical wave enhanced deep convection. - clunky writing, and also not entirely supported by the source; the TCR simply states that an increase in convection occurred sometime after the second wave reached the nascent cyclone.
  • Is post-analysis intended/conventional?
  • What's wrong with that?--12george1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Gabrielle brought rainfall to Puerto Rico totaling between 6 to 8 in (150 to 200 mm) in some areas, during a 48 hour period. - this sentence needs a total revamp; unnecessary comma, misplaced modifier, and it wasn't called Gabrielle yet.
  • Additionally, several trees were downed near a police station. - seems a bit irrelevant to mention the police station if it was not damaged.
  • The remnants of the depression were monitored for the potential for regeneration. - this sentence reminded me a bit of this song, which is never a good thing in academic prose. :) "The remnant system was monitored for regeneration." ?
  • Fixed the hole in the bottom of the sea :P --12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong winds on the island downed trees branches caused minor infrastructural damage, and left minor power outages. - not sure how this was supposed to be formatted, but... it wasn't done properly.
  • I think there was supposed to be a comma between "branches" and "caused".--12george1 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Overall the Gabrielle summary seems a bit drawn-out. I wouldn't mind if the last three sentences were combined into something more digestible: "After marked oscillations in intensity on September 12, Gabrielle finally succumbed to wind shear while located midway between Bermuda and Cape Cod." ?
  • I don't mind either. :P Ever since I started working on this article, I kept trying and trying to shrink the size of Gabrielle's section.--12george1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know what you mean. At some point you have to step back from a storm and say "wow, nobody's ever gonna care about this!" ;) – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The eight tropical depression of the season - I've noticed more typos than I believe I should for an FAC article. I've fixed a couple, and normally I would continue doing so, but seeing as I missed several the first time around, and other reviewers have apparently also missed them, I can't trust that I've spotted them all. At this point I think you need to buckle down and do some good old-fashioned proofreading.
  • You've 'fixed' it to "eigth". – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Thereafter" starts five sentences throughout the article; not sure it's suitable for any of them.
  • Heavy rains across Tamaulipas and Veracruz triggered flooding in areas that were affected by Tropical Storm Fernand just two weeks prior. Many areas were under water once again. - you've gone from on-point professional writing to hyperbolic newscaster-speak over the course of a full stop. Isn't the second sentence entirely redundant to the first in any event?
  • I guess you're right :P--12george1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Humberto continued to strengthen while passing south of Cape Verde, due to [...] moderate wind shear - I don't think it's fair to say the strengthening was attributable to the moderate wind shear; rather, it was not inhibited by it.
  • The storm brought periodic squalls to Cape Verde. - squalls by their nature are intermittent. Feel this could be presented better.
  • I think I should removed "periodic", because if squalls are intermittent like you say, than "periodic squalls" is an oxymoron.--12george1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rotterdam later reached São Tomé and Príncipe, though that country's port institute and coast guard denied the freighter' presence. - typo (I'll start listing them here instead of fixing them myself, to give you an idea of what to look for), and is Rotterdam the name of the freighter that went missing? Not immediately apparent.
  • Later on September 10, deepening briefly halted as the storm curved northwest in response to a developing mid-level trough. - useless to mention the steering mechanism without relating it geographically.
  • The storm decelerated late on September 16 and early on September 17 in response to a mid- to upper-level cyclone. - again, "in response" is vague and offers no real information. What about the cyclone aloft caused Humberto to slow?
  • Not really. What changed? You just reshuffled the line. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • For Humberto you mention the driving force behind every change in intensity and track; Ingrid appears to have had a mind of its own. Why isn't there more consistency in the level of meteorological detail?
  • The two storms produced 5,700 cu ft (160 m3) of water through heavy rainfall, the equivalent of filling every dam in Mexico. - How does one fill a dam? Surely you would fill the reservoir held back by said instead? Also, 160 cubic meters of rain from two hurricanes seems blatantly wrong to me. A brief look at the source (translated via Google, mind) seems to suggest the volume was more on the order of 160 billion cubic meters (more like it!). As this entire sentence seems to be based on mistranslated info, I'm really uneasy about trusting the rest of the text concerning non-US countries. You really need a fluent Spanish speaker to verify that your translations are accurate.
  • Eh... "the reservoir of every dam" is just weird. I'm almost certain the intended meaning is "every reservoir", but I'm only going by Google translate (as I assume are you). Also, where did you get that new figure of 29,988,109.7 cubic meters? I still get 162 billion cubic meters. When you've settled on a figure, round it off... nobody can calculate continental-scale rainfall to the tenth of a cubic meter. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on scatterometer wind data, the northern portion moved north-northwestward and transitioned into a low pressure area early on September 28. - "As evidenced by scatterometer..." ?
  • a blocking high pressure ridge caused the storm to drift northward, before curving northeastward the following day - poorly worded; the high didn't cause the storm to drift northward, it barely allowed it to drift. Come to think of it, did it really move north at all? The source and track map don't seem to think so.
  • A bit. I think the sentence doesn't quite make it clear whether you're referring to the ridge or the storm, though. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop there. The article is rife with misinformation, poor grammar, dubious Spanish-to-English translations, incomplete meteorological descriptions, and cross-section inconsistencies. The above bullets do not represent an exhaustive list of the issues. A day's worth of hard work could theoretically bring the article where it needs to be, but as it stands I wouldn't even promote it to GA status. On these grounds I must regrettably, but firmly, oppose. Sorry. Instead of just addressing the above points, I would suggest taking the time to go through the article and ensure that it's really among our best work. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

More

Some more specific comments:

  • Around then, the wave encountered an upper-level trough, increasing deep convection and spawning a broad trough of low pressure on September 28. - likely confusing to the layperson, especially since said "broad" trough is probably far less broad than the upper trough.
  • Karen was one of few named storms, such as Hurricane Alberto in 1982, during the reconnaissance era to dissipate in the Gulf of Mexico without making landfall. - needs a massage.
  • Let me remove Alberto 1982. The last system was actually Edouard 84, but I can't find a citation for that.--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • While the storm was threatening the Gulf Coast of the United States, the NHC issues several tropical cyclone warnings and watches as Karen approached. - typo.
  • residents were also ordered to flee Lafourche and Plaquemines. - why not "Parishes"?
  • I didn't want to make the article too religious :P --12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Only some of the US state names are linked in the Karen section, with no apparent rhyme or reason.
  • I didn't think this was supposed to be a rap :P In all seriousness, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey were wikilinked in previous sections. Texas was mentioned in Ingrid, but I forgot to wikilink it, so I will do that now.--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the moisture associated with the remnants of Karen was absorbed into a frontal system and caused minor flooding in a few states - I'm going to assume the frontal system caused the flooding, perhaps marginally enhanced by Karen's moisture.
  • I feel the Lorenzo section is a bit lopsided. The summary of its life as a TC seems overly detailed (and for a storm as uninteresting as Lorenzo, that means the prose becomes monotonous. "Shear... convection... weakened... trough... trough... degenerated... trough... convection", you get the idea. However, my initial impression is that the storm played a significant role in the genesis of the European storm, so I would very much like to see a couple sentences of info on the impacts thereof.
  • Early on November 17, an extratropical low developed along a stationary front. - where? Kind of weird to start a storm summary off without some idea of location.
  • However, a midst colder ocean temperatures - typo.
  • The remnants merged with another weather system several hours later. - if we haven't established the article is about the weather by now, we might be in trouble!
  • it executed a cyclonic loop to the south. - what does this mean?
  • No need for "to the south"--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I count over a dozen usages of "degenerated"/"degenerating", sometimes two or three in the same section. Look for synonyms (diminish, deteriorate, dissipate, dwindle).
  • The circulation became exposed from the convection, before all thunderstorms decreased. - an example of cumbersome wording that should be presented more smoothly. "The circulation became distanced from thunderstorm activity, which soon dissipated entirely." ?

I've reached the bottom of the article, but even if you alleviate these specific concerns, I'm afraid the article will still need quite a bit of work. You addressed my above list of comments very efficiently, and I appreciate that, but in this case I think you'd do well to actually spend some time to read the article yourself and verify the sources. I get the feeling much of the content has been taken from the individual storm articles, and that's fine; it's standard practice. However, that means you have to be super extra careful to check the info. A couple more examples:

  • Trees were knocked onto roads and power lines, leaving about 33,000 people without electricity. - Google translate suggests 33,000 homes were without power, not 33,000 people. As I don't speak French, I can't verify this... but it's important that somebody does so.
  • Apparently "foyers" means "homes" in English. Fixed.--12george1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Members of the Mexican Navy helped evacuate 4,000 people from their homes in the state of Veracruz. - I'm not sure I totally agree that the source confirms this. It seems to say the Navy, among other branches of the military, helped people evacuate, and that 4,000 people evacuated in total. It might be a bit of a leap to assume the Navy therefore helped 4,000 people evacuate.
  • An estimated 20,000 people were affected by the floods and officials opened four shelters in the area. - the source seems to say 20,000 homes were damaged. Again, I could be completely off the mark here, but Google translate combined with my rudimentary knowledge of Spanish tell me the translations might continue to be a bit off throughout the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed my "oppose" and struck my comments (as well as corresponding signatures for ease of reading) that have been addressed. It's getting closer, and like I promised early on, I'll jump in and do a bit of editing myself. In the meantime, I do still have some unresolved content-related concerns above. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

12george1, any progress? I said I'd be willing to help, but I'm afraid time might not be on our side here. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Update
  • Support Well, I've done some editing, and I feel the article is finally up to par. It's almost certainly the most thorough single account of the season available on the internet, and while there might still be a few rough patches in the writing, I'm confident the article will continue to be polished after its promotion to FA. Nice work George, and thanks for working with me to alleviate my concerns. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink[edit]

Given that I also have a hurricane FAC up right now, I figured I should comment.

  • When you mention "Category 2 intensity" - you should mention SSHS
  • "The season began on June 1 and ended on November 30" - I'd add "officially" somewhere in here, or add that NHC said that's what the season was, due to the December SS
  • Wait, it's not official until it's on Facebook :P--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd link "subtropical storm" in the first paragraph of the lead, since it's not a common term
  • "Although 15 tropical cyclones developed, several were weak or remained at sea resulting in impact from the season being relatively minimal." - add a comma after "sea"
  • I sea what you did there :P --12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Tropical Storm Andrea in early June killed four " - puppies? Dear god please don't let it be puppies.
  • Nah, it was four zombies :P --12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Particularly hit was Mexico" - did you mean to add "hard"?
  • When you mention Ingrid's impacts in the lead, I think you should add "in conjunction with Hurricane Manuel", since their impacts are kinda hard to distinguish.
  • I think the "pre-season forecasts" would be better organized if you mention differing factors that would make the season active or not, as compared to just a list of the forecasts and what they said. For example - "WSI noted the uncertainty in whether an El Niño would develop, while CSU did not anticipate such an event to occur." Or saying how many anticipated above normal temperatures. Similar, two of the agencies cited the increased activity since 1995 as a factor, so why not mention them together? Something like that would show the similar conditions between the agencies, as opposed to a big block of text. That way, you could also incorporate mid-season stuff, showing when the forecasts started going wrong. The whole section might need a rewrite, but I think it'd be better in the long run.
  • "fourteen named storms" - Melissa was the last named storm, which is the 13th letter of the alphabet. So....
  • "Despite the defied forecasts" - add comma
  • In the ACE section, are you including the subtropical storm? If so, you need a source to say subtropical is included. Also, "which was well below the 1981–2010 average of 92" - this isn't sourced.
  • "while initially heading north-northeastward, before recurving northeastward later that day" - I wouldn't say going from NNE to NE constitutes "recurving"
  • "A few hours later, the storm weakened slightly and made landfall near Steinhatchee, Florida later that day." - you have two generic references to time, which doesn't work IMO.
  • I assume you mean a reference to "later". Am I right?--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "There were 10 tornadoes,[25] the worst of which touched down in The Acreage and downed power lines and trees, causing significant roof damage to several houses; there was also one injury." - eek, too long and jumbled
  • "One death occurred in South Carolina after a surfer went missing and was presumed to have drowned" - so it goes from death to missing to presumed drowned. Why not just say "a surfer went missing and was presumed to have drowned?"
  • Because that would just be too easy :P --12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "over-top" --> "overflow"?
  • "and a minimum barometric pressure of 993 mbar (29.3 inHg)" - that doesn't match Barry's infobox
  • Oh, I see. I was 10 mbars too low.--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "In El Salvador, flooding caused one fatality, while another occurred after a person was struck by lightning." - why not mention this when you mention the other Central America impact?
  • What is "A large-amplitude tropical wave"?
  • I think it's just a fancy way of saying "large"?--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Overall, the storm caused one death and less than $10 million in damage." - I don't think you need to mention the one death again.
  • "Though the storm tracked swiftly west-northwest over warm ocean temperatures and within an environment of low wind shear initially, allowing it to attain peak winds of 60 mph (95 km/h) by July 25, the entrainment of drier mid-level air and cooler ocean waters caused a weakening trend to ensue." - a bit long
  • I think Durian's MH is a bit on the short side. You don't mention any of the TWO's that indicated it had a high potential for redevelopment north of Puerto Rico, for example.
  • "A tropical wave accompanied by an elongated area of low pressure and a large area of disorganized showers and thunderstorms, emerged off the west coast of Africa on August 15." - add comma after "wave"
  • Any impacts for Erin in the Cape Verde islands? Ditto for Gabrielle impact in Dominican Republic?
  • Haven't see any yet, but I will look--12george1 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "The storm passed about 23 mi (37 km)" - that's awfully exact for "about"
  • "Offshore, a freighter with a crew of six went missing amid 10 to 16 ft (3 to 5 m) swells." - any further info on this?
  • "The two storms produced 5,700 cu ft (160 m3) of water, the equivalent of filling every dam in Mexico." - this could use some clarification. Maybe add "produced X of water through their heavy rainfall"?
  • "before curved northeastward the following day" - bad grammar
  • Andrea's damage total should be sourced in the season effects section
  • Any reason the damage totals are sourced but the deaths aren't?
  • What is the publisher for ref 53? Otherwise, sourcing looks good.

Overall, the article is in pretty good shape, just a little rough around the edges in some parts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I did some copyediting on the lead; feel free to change anything you like. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Continuing.
  • "The season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period during each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic Ocean.": That was the second sentence in the lead ... since it's not directly about this hurricane season (other than the dates, which I kept), I thought it was wrong for the first paragraph and deleted it (but feel free to revert if you disagree). One question ... do sources really say that the season ended on November 30, but the last storm of the season lasted from December 5 to 7? I don't recall hearing the term "the season" including things that didn't happen during the season before. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "TSR lowered its numbers due to predicted cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures and above-average sea surface temperatures.": ?
  • - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "enough to fill every reservoir in Mexico": They did fill, or they could have filled? - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "to the near and to the west": ?
  • "north-northward to northward": ?
  • "operationally": At first occurrence, it might make sense to insert a short phrase that translates "operationally". Then you can use the word at will later on.
  • I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I took care of most of that stuff on behalf of the nominator. As for the seasonal dates, it's well-documented that hurricane season runs June 1 to Nov 30 (mostly for bureaucratic purposes, though it's caught on with the general public as well). Since we know December 5 is after November 30, I'm not entirely sure I understand your concern there, but it may well be a case of over-familiarity with hurricane jargon on my/our end. Thanks for taking the time to go over the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The changes addressed my questions, thanks. On the last point, "readability" can generally be tested. My hypothesis (not proven, and I don't have a cite other than dictionary definitions) is that most readers take "season" to mean "the span of time when the events happened" ... if so, it will at least slow them down to say that one of the events of the season happened outside the season, even if they do eventually get comfortable with it. I'm throwing it into the pile of things to test on random readers, when I get around to it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Winnipeg[edit]

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the locale fondly known as "Winterpeg", the capital of Manitoba and the Slurpee capital of the world. It is a GA that recently received a brief yet helpful PR, and I believe it to be a concise yet comprehensive account of the city. Any and all comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments.

  • "as the least expensive locations to do business": the least, or one of the least?
  • "17 Wing of the Canadian Forces is": There's disagreement on whether it's a good idea to start a sentence with a numeral if the numeral is part of a proper noun. The sentence can be reworded, if you like.
  • "Saskatchewan/Alberta", "tanker/transport", "River Heights/Tuxedo": I'm pretty sure that WP:SLASH doesn't want to see three of these in two consecutive paragraphs. I don't have a strong feeling about it. Ian can help with "tanker/transport"; he writes about those a lot.
  • I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits, Dan. I think I've addressed all of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I see this is stalled. Nikki, I'm not usually supporting at FAC these days (unless I've supported an article previously), but I'll make an exception here if you'll run through and fix the problems that have crept in since I copyedited (curly quotes and single quotes jump out at me). - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I don't know what this means, but I also don't know the best way to say it: " It has a diversified economy, covering finance, manufacturing, transportation, food and beverage production, industry, culture, government, retail, and tourism." - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tweaked that a bit. Thanks Dan! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comments I always like seeing the population history table in city articles, and they are found in nearly all of them. Is there any reason it was moved to the sub-category Demographics of Winnipeg for Winnipeg? I sampled randomly other FA cities and they all had the table (in one form or another). Not critical but is it possible to have a higher resolution image for the montage? I assume they are all taken from much higher resolution source images, and the image deserves to be larger. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mattximus, I've upped the size on the montage, but lead images are generally not any wider than 300px per MOS. As for the population history, it seemed undue for the necessarily broad overview in this article - fine-grained detail like that is better suited to the more specific sub-articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops sorry I was not clear. The size of the montage on the page was fine, I would in fact return it to how it was before. Just the file itself has very low resolution, 444 × 600 pixels is very very small for a lead image. For example, the original source for top image of the legislature alone is 5 times the resolution of the whole montage. Whoever made the montage shrank it almost ridiculously small. I will revert the size change since I was being unclear. Can't convince you of the historic pop table? I won't push the issue since historic pops are a niche interest of mine (and maybe not many others), I can make one more click. Mattximus (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again but I just did a survey of Canadian cities that are GA or Featured and found that 100% of them have the historic population table in the article under the demographics section. Would it not be weird that Winnipeg is the only one without a table? For reference see Montreal, Edmonton, London, Ontario, Coquitlam, Lethbridge, Moncton, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador and Hamilton (although this one uses a graph instead of table). Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Not particularly, no. I'm not sure what decisions led to it being included on those articles, but I still believe that it is better suited to the more specific Demographics article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I've thought about it quite a bit and come to the conclusion that it's an invaluable addition. Giving a sense of history and scope to the city at a glance. I think without this table the article would not be complete, and inconsistant with all the featured articles and good articles listed above (so comparisons are harder to make). weak oppose on this ground. Mattximus (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Extended comments from Curly Turkey moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
the area was populated for thousands of years by First Nations. - can we be any more specific? "several thousand"? or something? "thousands" just comes across as a bit nebulous.
Fort Gibraltar doesn't get a locator descriptor till its second mention, and Fort Douglas has none at all (it'd be good to a have an idea of where it is in relation to modern-day winnipeg)
The last sentence of the 1919 Strike to present just sorta sits there on its lonesome - can it be added to or tacked on somewhere or something?

The rest of the article reads well and does a good job of summarising what could otherwise read very listy. Nice work on that. However, I do feel that the lead reads a little mechanically and could do with a little massaging - just can't think how right this second. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, I've made some tweaks - see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok good - everythnig good, though I have been musing on the lead. The second para has the first two sentences sounding a bit formulaic starting, "The...." - if we can slip one other interesting/notable item that words differently I think that'd be great. Last para of lead a tiny bit listy - if any outstanding fact can be insetrted between last two sentences about any thing in/of the city I think it'd help greatly. I think once done then we're over the line. Alternate ideas on lead welcomed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Better? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I added more info to try and make it less mechanical. You can view the new intro on my Wikipedia User page. --Jd.101 (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried to make the intro better again.--Jd.101 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Image review
---Thats my own photo. The resolution is like that because I basically cropped it on Microsoft paint. --Jd.101 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. That explains all of my concerns — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Crisco, thanks for reviewing. I've swapped in a different Folklorama image and shrunk the flag. I believe that the two Wpg guys are one and the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, and I don't see any contradictory evidence. Do you want me to handle the crop of the Red River campus image? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that'd be great if you don't mind. Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Everything looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SupportComments from Hamiltonstone

  • Nice article, and a lot of work. Wow, I never knew that about Winnie-the-Pooh!
  • "In 1805, First Nations peoples were observed engaging in farming activity along the Red River. The practice quickly caught on..." Something odd here. If First Nations peoples were already observed farming, then among whom did it then "catch on"? White settlers? Other First Nations?
  • The article mentions archaeological etc evidence. Is there any dating evidence?
  • Minimum 6000 years ago, but I've seen estimates up to 12,000, which is why I was rather general with the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you add something like "The area was settled at least 6000 years BP[cite], though some studies suggest it was inhabited as much as 12,000 years BP [cite]"?
Fantastic. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1953, Manitoba was hit with the worst outbreak of polio in Canada. There were 2,357 cases and 80 deaths" - to the extent that this isn't about Winnipeg, perhaps it should be omitted?
  • There is some unnecessary repetition of info about floods between the history and the geography sections.
  • "named after the area's original grain exchange from 1880 to 1913" I think this means "named after the area's original grain exchange, which operated from 1880 to 1913"?
  • Is it correct Canadian English to refer to "Aboriginals" (rather than to either "Aboriginal people" or "Aborigines")?
  • Both "Aboriginals" and "Aboriginal people" are correct, although since the latter is more broadly used I've switched to that; "Aborigines" is AFAIK exclusively used in Canada to refer to the Australian group. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel the Economy section is not sufficiently substantial. The culture section tells me about an almost numbing number of institutions. Yet under the economy, there are no figures on unemployment rates, relative wealth, no numbers on the size of any of the economic sectors, no data on levels of income equality / inequality. I'm particularly struck by this because later I learn the city is Canada's murder capital - and that usually means significant levels of economic stagnation and/or inequality. Is there really no more information in this area?
  • Surprisingly enough, the data doesn't support that conclusion - unemployment rates and income inequality are both lower than the national average. I've added some statistics, though unfortunately many key details are available only at the provincial level. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the improvements. The last sentence - "As of May 2014, the Consumer Price Index was 125.8" will need some explanation. In Australia, CPI is usually referred to in terms of rates of change ("the CPI rose 2.7 percent"). I don't know the meaning of the straight figure (125.8). Is that a comparitor to...what? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, it can be used to compare geographical locations or historical periods directly. I am certainly no economist, though, so I might be wrong. Is it worth including or should I take it back out? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, i get it. I think only keep it if the reader can be given some context, eg "...was 125.8, reflecting higher/lower consumer costs compared to Canada as a whole with an index of Y".hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Winnipeg was named the Cultural Capital of Canada in 2010" - this looks dodgy - i clicked the link for the source, andthe impression i got was that this was a marketing action, whereby the city's art council gave itself that name. If so, then delete altogether. If not, can we clarify who bestowed this illustrious title?
  • Canadian Heritage, a department of the Government of Canada. The program has since been discontinued. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The city has developed many of distinct dishes and cooking styles" - stray "of"?
  • "a vaudeville house" - any potential target to link this to?

Otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Except as indicated, everything should now be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Information on race, ethnicity, and demographic trends seems to be largely missing from the text of the demographics section. Many people will be looking for such information, so I feel it is important to provide it here. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philpill, there is information on these things included - did you have something in particular that you felt was missing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel both of the following would be beneficial:
  • A description of recent demographic trends, especially having to do with the racial makeup of the population changing in recent years (white proportion decreasing, with visible minorities and Aboriginals increasing).
  • The current percentages of the various racial groups (currently there is only the ranking among cities for proportion of visible minorities; I feel specific percentages of the racial groups would be much more informative).
I'm sure there's a way to work these in neatly. --Philpill691 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Philpill, there is already a table indicating the current percentages of residents by ethnic origin. I've added some data on demographic trends. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is data on ethnic origins, but not on racial makeup. Also, it still isn't emphasized that white people are decreasing as a percentage of the population, while other groups are increasing (though you have noted that Aboriginals are increasing numerically, it still isn't clear that both they and visible minorities are growing as a percentage of the population). This is a notable demographic trend which is important to mention in the article. BTW there is a cite error in this section. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Better? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. Great article, well-written and comprehensive. I've made one minor change, but other than that I could find nothing to bring up here. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Doria-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

This is a joint effort between Parsecboy and I - these two ships had relatively uneventful careers for vessels that were in service for both world wars. They spent WWI in port but did see some action during WWII, including the raid on Taranto in 1940, where Caio Duilio was torpedoed. Both ships survived the war and were permitted to remain in Italian hands - they continued to soldier on, alternating as the fleet flagship until the early 1950s, when they were finally decommissioned after nearly four decades in service. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some details (like displacement) differ between infobox and article text
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • "Further reference" should be "Further reading"
  • Conway Maritime Press or just Conway? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Both, different iterations of the company name. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support (and hope to be more prompt than the last one, sorry.

Lede
  • "incidents, including the Corfu incident" Can we avoid the repetition?
  • Been trying to think about alternatives, but fracas, affair, etc. all have the wrong connotations. Suggestions welcomed.
  • FWIW I had the same thought as Wehwalt when I copyedited/reviewed at MilHist ACR, but came to the same conclusion as Sturm here, so I left it. I am planning to recuse from coord duties and revisit as a reviewer here, perhaps something will come to one of us yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You say in the lede they were withdrawn from service. The body says they were placed in reserve. Is this the same thing? You also are more specific about the year (1933) than you are in the body.
Propulsion
  • "12 of which burned both oil and coal." To quote from Johnny Dangerously, "one at a time or both together"?
Armament
  • "claims" I would not use this word unless I had very serious doubts about what is being stated. I think it says to the reader not to take seriously what follows.
  • "a bit" a bit informal. Perhaps "somewhat"?
  • " a total of" Unless I'm missing something, this can be safely cut
  • There are a number of places where words are repeated ("guns" "armor" "strake") in close proximity. I realize we are dealing with things that don't synonymize well, but do what you can. Not really an action item, because I lack the technical knowledge to know which ones can and which ones can't. More a suggestion.
Modifications etc.
  • "All of the changes made during their reconstruction" "All of" can be cut, I think.
Service history
  • "assisted in the suppression of Gabriele D'Annunzio" suppression reads oddly as applied to a person
  • That's about it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that I've cleared up the rest of these. See how well they read for you now. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness. The only things remaining are matters of editorial discretion, which I respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

First, the image review. File:Battleship Andrea Doria.png seems fine, but it should be moved to Commons (unless someone wants to retain a copy here for some reason). {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is for works which are free in the US but not in the source country; which is not the case here. File:Andrea Doria class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg seems fine. As for File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria.jpg, is the Imperial War Museum part of the United Kingdom government? File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria gunnery training.png has no author or date. File:Duilio 1948.jpg has text in Italian, which should be translated to English. It requires as well a license for its status in the US. I will make the article review later. Cambalachero (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria.jpg - Yes, the IWM is a national museum.
Re: File:Italian battleship Andrea Doria gunnery training.png - Added the year (it was in the citation, just not copied down when the description box was added) and no author is credited in the original publication.
Re: File:Duilio 1948.jpg - Added {{PD-URAA}}. The Italian text is just an explanation of Italian copyright law and is unnecessary - I've removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
All files seem right now. The ones that are free at both the home country and the US should be moved to Commons, but that can be done anytime and has no importance for this FAC. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Design

You should clarify the nationality of Guiseppe Valsecchi, to clarify the context. An article on him may be useful; but the link to vice admiral (just a rank) is a bit of overlinking. "General characteristics" and "Propulsion" are section of a single paragraph, they should be either expanded or upmerged. Sometimes you use unit acronyms, and others full word units. Sources disagree on gun's performance, but you mentioned Giorgio Giorgerini in the body and Friedman is hidden inside a ref note.

I think that readers will reasonably understand that Valsecchi was Italian absent any mention an international design competition. I have clarified that he was a naval architect. The four subsections of a general design and description section are a pretty standard format for ship FAs even though the general characteristics and propulsion sections are usually only a single para long. Generally we spell out a measurement on first usage and may or may not abbreviate it subsequently, usually depending on length. Giorgerini is privileged because he provides a single figure while Friedman gives a range of numbers. I suspect that he's quoting data from different models of shells used by the guns over time, but cannot be certain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Has this layout standard been discussed before? Can you name other articles that follow it? As for Friedman and Giorgerini, remember that we are not truth finders. If there is a dispute, then you must describe the dispute (that Friedman gives a certain figure and Giorgerini talks about a range), not give more prominence to one of the sides. Segregation of other points of view into less visible sections of the article layout is discouraged at WP:STRUCTURE.
Here are some of my FAs that use this structure: Japanese battleship Nagato, Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū, Russian battleship Retvizan, and Conte di Cavour-class battleship. Giorgerini provides shell weight, muzzle velocity and range, while Friedman gives a range of weights and velocities, without any range figures. Since this last is arguably the most important I went with it. I think that providing Friedman's alternate data is acceptably handled in a note so that readers can see the differences if they care.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Modifications and reconstruction

"Warhead" is a not a specialized technical word, it's not needed to link it.

I disagree with you here; the word's almost exclusively used in relation to weapons of one sort or another, in my experience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good reason, I will drop my concern. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Service history

You may consider adding a link to Military history of Italy during World War I and Military history of Italy during World War II, or just World War I and World War II. "too effectively" is unneeded, just "effectively" would be enough. Change "decided to implement" to "implemented". Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WWI and WWII are linked in the lede. Concur with your assessment on "too effectively"; disagree with your next point. We describing di Revel's thought process on how to deal with the A-H naval threat; if the point were more isolated and only dealt with Italian naval strategy your phrasing would be correct. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, so repeating internal links is not a problem. It is correct that you shouldn't link to a same article several times, but doing it in the lead and in the body is not a problem. The point with "decided to implement" is that it is a bit wordy; we are not describing his thought processes but his actions, and the context provided already does a good job in clarifying why did he do that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, the two sentences prior to the one under discussion discuss Di Revel's analysis of the tactical situation and decision not to directly attack the A-H fleet. And this sentence flows directly from the others. I would, however, welcome comments from any other editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If the article was longer I don't mind linking in the lede and the main body, but it seems insulting to readers to do so in a 15K article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support -- Recusing myself from delegate/coordinator duties, when this was at MilHist ACR I copyedited and reviewed structure, detail, images and sources before supporting. Looking over changes since then, I just had one tweak to make to the prose and am happy to support here as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Haven't checked image status or sources but I support on all other criteria except comprehensiveness, which I'm not qualified to judge. Comments. I'll add notes here as I go through the article. I've completed the review; the article is in great shape and I expect to be able to support once the minor points below are addressed.

  • "Both ships were scrapped after 1956": I assume this is phrased this way because the sources give no details on the date they were scrapped, but it reads oddly. How about using the same phrasing as in the body of the article, which makes it clearer what happened: "Both ships stricken from the naval register in September 1956 and were subsequently broken up for scrap"?
    I now see the scrap dates in the body of the article -- 1957 and 1961. I'd suggest just giving those dates in the lead, to avoid the odd phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the phrase reads oddly. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the main body and that phrase provides the general info as to the fate of the ships while the main body provides the more exact details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "By that time, Italy had entered World War II": I'd suggest adding "on the side of the Axis"; you specify Italy's side in WW I just a few lines above, and I think the same should be done here.
  • Did anyone of note serve on either ship? I don't know if it's usual in ship articles to mention who the commanding officers were, but I wondered about that too.
    • I have no idea if anyone of note served aboard; Italian naval officers are very poorly covered in English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are "Shafts" and "Geared" written with the initial upper case in the "General characteristics" section of the infobox?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    • Fixed. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
      Switched to support above; the "both ships were scrapped after 1956" point is just personal preference on my part. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Death on the Rock[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Following on from my success with Operation Flavius, which passed FAC a few weeks ago, I now bring forward this article, on the documentary that ensured the controversy surrounding the SAS' actions in Gibraltar in March 1988 wouldn't die. It caused outrage in the government, which (arguably) led to a total reform of the broadcasting system and the press accused it of "trial by television" and attempted to discredit its witnesses. All in all, possibly the most written-about 44 minutes in British television history.

As ever, all constructive comments are very welcome. Please note that I might become unavailable at short ntoice due to helath issues, so if I don't respond quickly, please bear with me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments.

This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Thames lost its franchise": Non-Brits might not get that this means "lost its license to broadcast".
    • "lost its license to broadcast" isn't quit accurate; Thames was no longer the company making and commissioning content to be shown on ITV. I'm not sure how best to rephrase this. Perhaps a few other Brits might want to chime in?
      • "Thames lost its franchise" is perfectably understandable to this Brit. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Thames lost its franchise": I'm not sure if you need to say this twice in the lead.
    • It's an important fact—important enough to be included in the first paragraph (which is the very high level summary) and at the end of the lead. I'm not sure there's any way round saying it twice.
  • "decisions which many people believed were influenced by the government's anger at "Death on the Rock".": Some people say :) that "many people believed" is sort of prohibited per WP:WORDS; I don't agree, but I think there probably ought to be a punchier way to conclude the lead section, something that demonstrates that the government's actions had a chilling effect that kept the public from seeing other shows with similar information. (There's also an argument that mindreading the government's "anger" plays into their position. They probably claimed that their motives were pure, but if the question is the ability of journalists to report accurately on the actions of a government without being punished, then what's relevant is whether the government's actions effectively stopped other programs on the same subject matter from being aired, and according to your sources, they did.) Here are two examples, from your next-to-last paragraph: "Two other programmes were made about the Gibraltar shootings for British television, both by the BBC. BBC Northern Ireland produced an episode of Spotlight which arrived at similar findings to those of This Week; Howe attempted to have the programme delayed, using the same rationale with which he requested "Death on the Rock" be postponed. The programme was eventually broadcast, but restricted to Northern Ireland. The BBC's flagship current affairs series Panorama made a programme about the SAS and its role in the Troubles to coincide with the end of the end of the Gibraltar inquest; it was postponed by BBC executives in the wake of the controversy surrounding "Death on the Rock"."
    • From what I gather, the consensus of public opinion was that Thaggy personally gave Thames a good handbagging, but he sources just say "many people believe" or "it was widely believed" or some variation thereof. The sources don't dwell much on the BBC documentaries, and it's worth remembering that the Beeb is effectively a state broadcaster, so it has a shorter leash for investigating the government than ITV.
  • "the first such inquiry into a single television programme": appears twice in the lead (with slightly different words). - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't need quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
  • Be consistent in whether short cites include commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    All fixed, I think. Thanks, Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I reviewed this article for MILHIST A-Class, and have reviewed all subsequent edits.
  • My major issue is with the lead, which doesn't flow at all well. Eg "The report largely vindicated "Death on the Rock", and found that it had, for the most part, accurately presented the evidence of its witnesses. Two years after the report, Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished." and "Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990—decisions which many people believed were influenced by the government's anger at "Death on the Rock"." I consider that the initial para looks like it was the original lead, and the rest feels tacked on. I suggest the lead, after establishing notability (which it does well in the first sentence), should just reflect the chronology, rather than repeat itself about the inquiry, the franchise etc. I know this point was made at ACR as well as above, and I think it really needs a good hard look.
  • One point brought up in the ACR was that Treacy only appears in the Broadcast section. I suggest she should be identified by name in the sentence "one who claimed to have seen the soldiers shooting Savage in the back without warning and continuing to shoot him while he was on the ground" The other witness is identified by name, so no reason not to identify her as well at that point.
  • That's it for me, otherwise I consider it meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Peacemaker. I've added a mention Treacy; leave the lead issue with me. I'll be offline for the rest of the week, but I'll try to get to it next week. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment -- more of a placeholder at the moment, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and plan to check additions made since then, but I might wait for any edits in response to PM's suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Harry, looks like you're around again, if you return to this review and respond to outstanding comments I'll be happy to add my tuppence worth as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Ian. I'll get to this in the next few days, I promise—I am sort of around, but I'm dealing with a lot of Wikimania stuff which is occupying every waking moment and a few more besides at the moment! It should calm down next week, at least for a few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I've completed my review; the article is very well-written and clear. There are a couple of minor comments below, but my main concern is the lead structure.

  • "Two years after the report, Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished": I agree with the comment above that this doesn't need to be said twice in the lead. I'd remove the first statement; the second one provides context, and in the summary form that a lead provides I think it's more than enough to say it at the end of the lead.
  • "while tabloid newspapers accused it of sensationalism": "it" refers to the documentary, but it seems odd to me to have the documentary accused of something; it would more naturally be the producers of the documentary. How about "tabloid newspapers branded it as sensationalist"? Or "denounced", or "attacked"?
  • Having gone through the lead a couple of times, I think the problem is that the first paragraph of the lead is being made to serve as a lead within the lead -- it summarizes some information re-presented later in the lead. I can see that this would require quite a bit of surgery on the lead's first paragraph, so before I go further, perhaps I should ask if there is a precedent for this sort of lead structure? It's not something I've seen before, but perhaps I just haven't run into it.
  • "were witnessed to park a car in a car park in Gibraltar, which was used": how about "were witnessed parking a car"? And I'd suggest "...Gibraltar; the car park was used" to avoid any momentary parsing of "which" as referring to "Gibraltar".
  • "he confirmed Styles' contribution to the documentary that the IRA had not been known to use a remote-detonated bomb without a direct line of sight to their target": I think a colon after "documentary" is necessary.
  • "The report dismissed this concern, believing that...": the report didn't believe anything; the authors of the report did. You use "the report considered" and "the report asserted", which I think are OK, but this seems a step too far to me. How about making it "The report dismissed this concern on the grounds that..."?
  • A minor point: was the Panorama programme eventually aired?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

1998 FA Charity Shield[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about English football's traditional curtain-raiser, played in 1998. Like nearly all Charity Shield stagings, this was a drab affair because it has the feel of a pre-season match – the events of the game weren't particularly memorable, but it was the first competitive match of Manchester United's successful 1998–99 season. I nominated this for PR last month and have since made adjustments; I believe now the article is worth a shot here. Any sort of comment would be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Clarify that 9 August 1998 is the date of the match, because as it is, it appears that this was the date when Manchester United secured the 2nd place in the league.
  • Rejigged sentence and cited date on the infobox. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Manchester United began the game more effectively of the two,..." – Is "of the two" necessary? Reads strangely.
  • "... with the corresponding home fixture, at home, ending..."
  • Could you state in which phase of the competition Manchester would face ŁKS Łódź?
  • Shouldn't "players sharpness" have an apostrophe somewhere? Unless the quotation lacks it...
  • "... for their upcoming matches."[14]" – Extra quotation mark there?
  • Remove the first instance of ref 17, as the second covers every content before it
  • Please, use {{convert}} to display the metric correspondent of "25 yards"
  • "Anelka in turn transferred it to Wreh..." – link Wreh
  • Remove the margin, cellspacing and cellpadding parameters from the statistics table coding, as it messes with its disposition in the subsection.
  • Move ref 24 to the end of the sentence, alongside ref 25
  • "Ferguson admitted his team were been beaten..." – 'were beaten' or 'had been beaten'
  • "... was confident his team would fare better, against ŁKS Łódź..." – remove comma
  • "two goals to nil" → 2–0
  • "group stages" should be singular, as there was only one group stage in the 1998–99 UEFA Champions League.
  • "United's 2–1 win against Tottenham meant they pipped Arsenal to first position by a point." – Actually, United had already pipped Arsenal in the penultimate round, following their win over Middlesbrough and Arsenal's loss to Leeds United. This win only secured the first place, which was already theirs. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • True – rephrased it to highlight that the title was only decided on the final day, and there was a outside chance Arsenal could win it.
  • If you finish the article mentioning the treble, then you should mention again that, after getting past Arsenal in the semi-final, United won the FA Cup final.

Parutakupiu (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, think I've addressed them all. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. Good job. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Drive by comment: Isn't the lead rather long? Four paragraphs of lead, but only a further nine paragraphs of prose in the article itself. 194.176.105.145 (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Trimmed the lead to three paragraphs; removed bits about team news and what the managers had to say. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I've made some minor tweaks. I suggest adding some of the following:

  • Names of the linesmen (if known)
  • Perhaps a photo, ideally of Overmars
  • The fact it was Arsenal 9th Charity Shield win
  • Who presented the trophy (if known)

--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments – added the 9th win in the post-match section and an image of Wenger, as I couldn't find any of Overmars which are licensed/on Wikicommons. Nor could I find any information about who presented the Shield, or names of the fourth official/linesman, etc in the archives at this moment. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Another obvious omission I see is a lack of a link to the match report in the relevant field of the details section, you could use this one {http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-arsenal-show-united-little-charity-1170865.html]. Also I see several Independent articles you've used as references, all of which are freely available online. I supposes there's nothing wrong with referencing the hard copy instead, but I do feel it would be an improvement if readers were able to actually click to see the material in question.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers for the heads-up -- have found a few more online Independent articles to link accordingly. Changed the details source because the one I initally cited didn't specify what time in the match certain players were shown yellow cards -- this article does however. And across the print texts there are inconsistencies between match facts and written reports; when minute did Arsenal scored their three goals and how many players were booked. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Made a couple of changes myself, almost there i think, though we surely need at least one more image? Perhaps a photo of the old Wembley stadium could be used? (ideally taken as close to that year as possible). Alternatively, maybe a photo of the trophy? Perhaps even both?--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Have now added an image of Wembley. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok,I've been looking through other comparable matches that have achieved FA status in order to find anything we might be missing and encourage others to do the same, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Showcase. I see some have diagrams of the team line-ups, heres one such example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sounders_FC_vs_Columbus_Crew_2010-10-05.svg Do we have sufficient information for such a diagram without venturing into original research? Alternatively can we at least describe each player's position as per some of the FA Cup finals that have FA status?--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
PeeJay has created a line-up graphic and I've added some detail about the formations Arsenal and United employed without getting too technical. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Support, my concerns have all been addressed and I can't think of any other issues, good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
One further thought, I note the "AXA" logo on the programme, and assume they're the sponsor? It seems to be standard practice to mention such information so I suggest a brief mention of that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Explained my reasoning for not including sponsors here. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the more recent Charity/Community Shields should have sponsor information included, as they often request that their name be included in the title of the match (e.g. this year's "FA Community Shield sponsored by McDonalds"). However, although I have a copy of the match programme from the 1998 Charity Shield, which undoubtedly contains info about AXA's sponsorship, I don't think their name was included in the title of the match (it wasn't called "The AXA FA Charity Shield", AFAIK). – PeeJay 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it turns out the situation was quite the opposite. There's literally nothing about AXA's association with the Shield in the programme, but they do refer to it as "The AXA FA Charity Shield", albeit only once in the running order at the front of the programme. – PeeJay 12:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • comment reading through now..will jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Manchester United began the game more effectively - maybe "strongly" - "effectively" doesn't go here....
had won the Shield outright - why is "outright" needed here?
Because up until 1992 a drawn game resulted in each club having to share the Shield for six months each. Although Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur both list the 1991 FA Charity Shield as an honour, it was shared. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looks on target.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for taking a look. Hopefully I've addressed all your concerns. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Need to sleep now - will take another look in the morning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Notes -- Looks like we still need image and source reviews and, assuming this is your first FAC, Lemonade (a belated welcome in that case!) we'll also need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake one or more of those, pls do so, otherwise we can list requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Hamiltonstone

  • I'm assuming football stripes are not images requiring review. If I'm wrong, someone else will have to tackle that.
  • File:1998 FA Community Shield programme.png - has a non-free use rationale. Resolution is OK, and content is generally relevant, but I'm not clear how it meets nfcc#8. The existing rationale is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". But the article isn't about the poster art as such, and I'm not sure how important the poster art is to an understanding of this charity shield match...
    • This is an old concern that I've seen plenty of times. My contention has always been that the poster/programme cover serves as the primary means of visual identification for the match; a random photo from the match might do the job, but it would take a fair bit of detective work to ascertain that the photo came from that specific match, whereas the programme cover is unique and provides all the info you would need to identify this match. The article may not be about the programme itself, but the programme, the match and all other paraphernalia are related, IMO. – PeeJay 07:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, if others are happy with that, then change the text at the NFCC to "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the subject of the work in question". hamiltonstone (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Wembleyold.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Arsenal vs Man Utd 1998-08-09.svg - looks OK
  • File:Arsene Wenger.JPG - this is on commons; the page states that permission for the image can be found here, but the link doesn't work for me, so I am none the wiser. It would be more appropriate to provide a copy or account of the permission on the commons page, not just a bare url which, once broken, gets us nowehere.
    • The permission link is available on the Internet archive; is this sufficient? Lemonade51 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess so - the page is very bare and you can't tell what it links to, but that isn't your fault - that's down to the originator of the page. AGF, it's OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

These "epoch" warships were the first dreadnoughts fielded by the United States Navy. Congressionally-mandated weight restrictions (some two to three thousand tons less than the earlier British Dreadnought) were the impetus for some of the class' many innovations, but they also led to their uselessness during the First World War—their comparatively slow speed limited them to convoy escorting and home defense, tasks also assigned to completely obsolete battleships. Their ignominious careers were ended alongside dozens of other warships by the Washington Naval Treaty.

This article's first FAC was not promoted after I ran into several real-life obligations and was unable to address the worthy criticism. Thankfully, I have much more time now. While the style of this article may be a bit unusual, I've made many of the same choices (including the collapsed infobox) in previous FACs, such as Pennsylvania-class battleship. My thanks in advance for all constructive criticism. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why does some "courtesy" caption links go directly to the source and others only to the image description page?
  • File:Brassey's1912_South-Carolina.png: needs US PD tag, and if the artist is unknown how do we know they died more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hey Nikkimaria, thanks for the image check. I've fixed the Brassey's image with the date of the illustrator's death; it was previously found for File:Brassey's_HMS_Canada_Plan_(1915).jpg by Jappalang. The courtesy links vary because some of them were uploaded by NARA specifically for this article and are not on their website. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Why all the courtesy captions in the first place? IMO they should be on the Commons pages, not here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • See no need for humongous image at top of mistakenly shrunken infobox.
  • Shrink the line drawing and why are all of these photos upright 1.4? They're far larger than normal and I don't see any real point to doing so.
  • Are these ships "shes" or "its"? The former is customary.
  • You're using the ship names far too much, mix them up with a few pronouns and "the ship".
  • Shouldn't eastern seaboard be capitalized as a proper noun?
  • Spell out state abbreviations for those outside the US. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Split out |ship power from |ship propulsion and put ihp and # of boilers in ship power. Add # of shafts and engines to ship propulsion. Tell the reader that VTE engines are steam engines.
  • Link knots, nautical miles, boiler (once added) and add hyphen for triple expansion engine when spelled out as it's a compound adjective.
  • Abbreviate nautical miles and limit conversions from feet/inches to just one digit after the decimal, not the template's default.
  • Data for armor is inconsistently presented and converted.
  • Link and add an explanatory note for caliber like I had to do for Lexington-class aircraft carrier.
  • Provide a more exact scrapping or disposal date in the Ships table.
  • Specifications for Possible need to use US spellings not the template's default British spelling.
  • Figures for draft differ between Specifications section and infobox.
  • lower than HMS Dreadnought, the namesake British ship built shortly before the South Carolinas This is awkward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sturm. I've seen these comments and will address them as soon as I can. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Replies are in order:
    • @1 and 2, it's a stylistic choice. The images and thumbnail size are like postage stamps, with little detail open to being seen. I like seeing details w/o clicking. :-) As for the collapsed infobox, it's to allow more room for imagery. All of the specifications are available with either one click or farther down in prose form.
      • Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide says: "The standard size for infobox images is 300px. Different values may be used, but you should only do so if absolutely necessary."
      • I see absolutely no reason why the infobox image should differ from the standard 300px. I'm far more willing to grant much more freedom to vary sizes for later images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The first, and most important bit of info, that the line drawing will convey is the general layout of the ship, such as turret and mast locations, etc. The only thing that you lose by using the default size is armor thickness and the stuff at the bottom, which should arguably be cropped as redundant to the infobox. This image dominates the entire article and for no good purpose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll cut down the line drawing image; you're probably right in it dominating the surrounding text. I still don't agree on the infobox image, but can we compromise at 350px? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
          • What do you really gain by the extra 50 pixels? Most of what I can see now at the current size is the silhouette of the ship, details of the cage masts, some boats and the gun casemates. Most all of that will be retained if you use the standard 300 px size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've gone with "its" to be more formal. The only "she" is in the quote from Friedman, which I'm not allowed to change!
    • That's a really good point, especially in the specifications. I'll be addressing this.
    • Tony or Dank: eastern seaboard or Eastern Seaboard (of the US)? I think Sturm's right here.
      • Eastern Seaboard. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dank—do you have any advice on vertical-triple-expansion vs vertical triple-expansion and the last point? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm generally not comfortable with hyphen advice (except in cases where we can just look it up). If you're asking about "its", just the fact that AP Stylebook recommends it means that 90% of copyedited text in this country goes with "its". But I buy the argument that "her" might convey a certain intimacy with the source material ... and whether that's the tone you're going for is up to you. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see any state abbreviations? Or am I just blind?
      • No, in your refs.
        • To be clear, you're asking me to spelling out "Washington, District of Columbia" for "Washington, DC"? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Done.
    • Done in the infobox. Is it vertical-triple-expansion or vertical triple-expansion?
    • Done, I believe?
              • Vertical is a separate adjective from triple expansion as there were horizontal multiple-expansion engines, so it's vertical triple-expansion steam engines.
    • Armor inconsistencies fixed.
    • Will do asap. DANFS gives much more detailed info on their fates that I didn't include for some unknown reason... Complete.
    • Done.
    • I'll pull out Friedman from my book box and double-check it for the draft figures. Complete.
    • Honestly, I've been staring at that sentence too. Tony/Dank, any thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
      • @Sturmvogel 66: I've either replied or addressed all of your points, with the exception of the state abbreviations and the hyphens. How do they look? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Simply as a point for future use, the template for knot automatically converts into kmh and mph; save yourself some unnecessary typing.
        • I think that it's a good idea to link terminology like knot and nautical mile in both the infobox and main body.
        • When people read engine I believe that they're automatically gonna think internal combustion engine so you simply can't say just triple-expansion engine; you have to specify that it's a steam engine.
        • I don't think that it's well covered in Friedman, but at least a mention of how the Americans moved their gun sights in the main gun turrets to either the side or the front of the turret (I forget which, off-hand) is worthy of mention. It was almost another decade before the Brits and Japanese stopped using roof-top gunsights that weakened the roof armor and could deafen the gunners in lower turrets when the superfiring guns fired above them.
        • I fixed a couple of the points above for you and cut back a couple of the unnecessary decimal places as well as I tend to be fussier about specifications, etc. than most. Still have to get to the meat of the article, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Ah, I learned something today.
          • Point well-taken. Thanks for fixing this in the article.
          • I'll work on finding a mention; there may be one in Battleship Design and Development.
          • Thanks again for the thorough review. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • early years a little imprecise, how about first decade?
    • Done.
  • Link Congress
    • Done.
  • Provide ranks for all serving officers like Capps, Taylor, etc.
    • Capps is done. I don't see a rank for Taylor (for 1905) beyond "naval constructor". I assume I need to dig deeper.
  • Be consistent in referring to all measurements of the same type, like gun bore diameters, either all spelled out or none. This overrides the normal rule about numbers less than 10 being spelled out.
    • I believe I've fixed these.
  • Convert 11 inch.
    • Done.
  • Watch for overlinks.
    • Do you have Ucucha's script for checking for overlinks? If not add this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Where?
  • Trials section is a bit too detailed, IMO, other than the damage sustained during them. Done up to service history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I could trim it down a bit around the damage, but then we lose the context. South Carolina's trials are only a few sentences long. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Dude, you've got more information on the trials than you do for their armament and armor, combined! We're an encyclopedia and not supposed to include every fact that you run across just because we're not paper. I've been having a discussion with another editor over on the talk page of HMS Indomitable where he wants to add the ship's displacement and rpm count to the trials info. Simply because it's been made available by one author, even though it's been ignored by all the rest. The average reader doesn't care about that info, nor will zhe care about the dates of the subsequent trials or even the various types of trials conducted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Still waiting on response/action on image issues. Why credit every image, why so big, why link to NARA more than once, etc.?
        • Yes, but tell me where I should cut it down? Michigans trials are documented because of the multiple damages. Otherwise there's one paragraph about the launch ceremonies, a short paragraph listing what the builders had to meet on the trials, one sentence on Michigan's commissioning, then a few sentences on South Carolina's trials and commissioning. Conceivably, I could remove some information in the last paragraph, but cutting anything from the Michigan paragraph would cause the damages to lose context (hence my previous comment, if that wasn't clear!).
          • I think that you're overthinking things; it's actually pretty easy. Delete the entire short para about the specifics of the trials and just say that Michigan ran aground during the trials, damaging her propellers. And then give the top speed made by each ship. I cover trials in about two sentences in my articles, so the readers lose nothing by compressing this absurd amount of detail down that much. The funny thing is that Damwiki1 (talk) who wants even more details added about trials would probably say that you've got too much of the wrong sort of info here as you don't mention ship displacement, horsepower and rpm counts. To sum up I normally cover construction and trials in a paragraph or so, so I don't see any issues with in doing the same here. IMO, you've given far too much weight to the trials than they deserve since it's about 2/3s the length of the entire service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
            • @Sturmvogel 66: Sorry for not seeing this sooner; I didn't realize that you replied in-line. I've shortened the paragraph in question! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
        • On the images, I do it because NARA has uploaded images specifically for this article. I've done it in previous FAs of mine with no complaint. As for the sizes, WP:IMGSIZE says that there should be a "good reason" to do so. That's not a high hurdle to clear. The postage stamp-sized default thumbnail size does not show the detail that I'd like for historical images that are of this high of quality (in pixels and clarity). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I counted two or so images that Dominic loaded for you this year. The other images are usually far older. I have no particular issue mentioning the source if they were special requests, but the others should not be mentioned as per the usual practice. I regret not mentioning the image issues in the Pennsy-class article, but you were so insistent on the hidden infobox that I figured it was a waste of time, much as it seems to be proving here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

  • Link Norman Friedman
  • Can't you just put a footnote into the quote box instead of a full reference?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of journal articles
  • FN4: does the Campbell title include that date range? It's not in the References entry
  • Be consistent in whether you use "South Carolina Sisters" or "The South Carolina Sisters" in short cites
  • FN16 should have same capitalization as References entry. Also, here you use a more complete title than in FN20 - check for other inconsistencies in short cites
  • FN24, 25: don't need location in short cite
  • Compare Jones title in References versus short cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To the delegates, since the editor hasn't responded to comments in almost a month, I recommend that this review be archived so he can resubmit when he has more free time to deal with the issues raised above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for the lack of a response. I was forced to move about a month ago and we just got Internet at the new place two days ago. I have time blocked out this weekend to respond to all of the above points. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Request withdrawn, just say that you're temporarily incommunicado, next time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Will do, although I really hope that never happens again. ;-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • As I said in the first FAC, I don't care for the collapsed infobox. I understand that you want room for images, but even with the box expanded, there's plenty of room for the photo of New Hampshire before it runs into the line drawing at the bottom of the section. You'd need a rather wide screen for that to be a problem, and you could shorten the infobox some by removing the cost figures (which are next to useless to readers, since they cannot be easily converted to 2014 dollars) and the note on the source of figures (which could easily be converted into a footnote and placed elsewhere, such as the "General characteristics" line of the box). You could also stand to lose the ship type field as well.
    • Done. I wrestled with the sourcing note as well, but I don't really have another place to put it, as it applies to the whole infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The photo of New Hampshire should really be on the left side, since it's right-facing.
  • I also think the line-drawing is rather too large - you might be better served by reducing it to 3-400px and moving it into the design section (and shifting the quote box down). An added bonus is that this would further reduce the need for collapsing the box, especially coupled with moving the photo of New Hampshire to the left.
  • "As the superfiring arrangement used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship..." - did it use more space than the 5 turrets of Dreadnought or the eight of Satsuma? Or more compared to the Italian Dante Alighieri or Russian Gangut? What I'm getting at is, was it the superfiring arrangement that took up more space or simply the fact that it was twice as many 12" guns, with twice as many corresponding magazines, shell rooms, etc. that caused the space crunch?
    • It was a combination of factors. The superfiring/centerline arrangement took up space that had been previously devoted to boilers, for instance. The ship could have been made bigger/longer to compensate, I suppose, but the congressional displacement limit would be broken by a larger ship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Right, but what I'm getting at is whether the superfiring arrangement took up more of the ship's volume than 4 turrets in a different arrangement (say the lozenge of the Invincibles) would have taken up. As it reads now, it suggests that four turrets in a superfiring arrangement took up more space than the equivalent number of heavy guns in Invincible - which is to say, the internal volume problem was one of arrangement, rather than the simple fact that 4 large barbettes/shell rooms/magazines/etc. requires more room than 2 of them. Does my question make sense? Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • @Parsecboy: I don't think we're making it clear to each other. :-) First, Friedman doesn't say what would use up more space. However, in a ship that was already shortened due to congressional weight restrictions and being designed by individuals who were used to only having to place two main turrets on the centerline, the superfiring arrangement took up far more space than they were used to, requiring them to move many traditional locations (the boiler room, for one). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I think you've answered my question - if so, then it should be reworded to something like "As the additional main battery turrets with their associated magazines used a great amount of space within each already-limited ship..." - the point being to make clear that it was the additional number of main battery turrets, not the particular arrangement, that was responsible for the space problem. What you have now won't be an issue for most readers, but to those of us "in the know", it would suggest that the superfiring arrangement was particularly wasteful of space as compared to other arrangements. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it would be best to concentrate the discussion of the merits of the superfiring arrangement in one place - right now it's spread out a bit in the design section and then a bit more in the characteristics section.
  • Did experience with the Kearsarge or Rhode Island classes play any role in the adoption of superfiring turrets? These ships didn't have superfiring guns per se, but from what I understand they were rather unsuccessful and might have caused some opposition to a superfiring arrangement.
    • That's actually something I looked for while writing up the background. While it would stand to reason that those ships would comw up, Friedman doesn't mention them even once in US Battleships. The main controversy came from C&R's insistence that mixed batteries were fine; or as Friedman puts it, "The bureau also observed sarcastically that quite competent authorities had been happy enough with a mixed battery only a short time before ..." My suspicion is that while they seem similar, the reality was different enough to lead detractors to focus on different topics. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Did draft change at full load?
    • This is going to sound odd, but I don't have any sources that give their full-load drafts. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Add crew figures to the characteristics section please
  • Any info on what types/number of boats each ship carried?
  • How about for the electrical system (i.e., type and number of generators, combined output, etc.)?
  • And range and performance data for the main battery guns? Elevation/depression?
  • Where were the casemate guns located? Any idea if they had the same problem with being worked in heavy seas as many contemporary ships did?
    • Re last two questions, I don't have that information in my sources, and Navweaps is still not reliable (afaik). I have, however, ordered Friedman's US Naval Weapons, which should correct that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I, which should have the same information, if you need it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • @Parsecboy: Yes, that would be great. There's no tracking information yet, leading me to think that they've just marked it as 'shipped' so I can't cancel, and Amazon tells me that it could be at my house as late as July 10th. Thank you very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
          • @Parsecboy:, US Naval Weapons doesn't cover the SC's casemates. Can your book fill the gap? Apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
            • It doesn't mention the casemates either. Do you happen to know what the specific type of gun it was? I'm guessing the Mk III gun. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
              • I can't confirm that either. I've sent an email to Tony DeGiulian. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
                • @Parsecboy: I've forwarded you an email. In short, DeGiulian thinks that the guns were at least Mark 5, but he can't be sure on the exact mark—and he's working with a picture form 1914, so they may have been upgraded after being commissioned. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • According to Friedman, the Mk III was the version in production when these ships were built. I wonder if any articles in Proceedings would mention the specific type? Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mention the torpedo armament in the text?
  • You have a few dupe links in the article - do you have the script to detect them?
    • Just installed it. I've removed most of them, though I've left the additional links in the specifications section with the idea that the technical terms should be linked. Please let me know if you object!
      • Fair enough - though I'd cut one of the links to Dreadnought in the Design section - the quote box is right next to the paragraph with the link in it, which is a bit much IMO.
  • Re: Kieler Woche - link to regatta
  • Why Vera Cruz instead of Veracruz?
  • "due to their top speeds, which were lower than the later Standard-type battleships" - the Standards only started with the Nevadas (i.e., the second generation of US dreadnoughts) - all of the rest of the first generation (Delaware to New York classes) were 21-knotters (and it was the 1st gen ships that did the bulk of USN service in Europe in WWI).
    • Good point. I've generalized this to "all subsequent US battleships". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "which limited naval construction in the hope of averting a vastly expensive naval arms race" - it wasn't just "in hope" of averting another arms race, it did avert another race (or at least delay it for 15 years). Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • One other thing occurs to me upon re-reading the introduction - it really ought to mention the superfiring arrangement. Dreadnought was the first in service with the all-big-gun arrangement (though her real innovation was the use of turbines in a large warship) but the superfiring, all-centerline arrangement was also a major step forward (and was only employed in the other major navies several years later). Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Had I not re-read the lead before this, I would have sworn it was in there. It definitely deserves to be. Will add. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Added! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
        • After a third look at the lead, I think it might be wise to include the fact that the shift to the all-big-gun armament was occurring elsewhere besides the USN - at very least I'd think Dreadnought should be mentioned and maybe Satsuma as well.
          • Added a link to Dreadnought, but I don't cover Satsuma in the article itself. I think that's what dreadnought is for, no? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Something else just caught my eye - "little-armored destroyers" in the Background section - as far as I'm aware, there weren't any destroyers of the period that carried armor - probably better to just say "unarmored" instead. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)