Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, embolden headings). The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

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

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations

Rainilaiarivony

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

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

Jesse L. Brown

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

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

Augustinian theodicy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwanda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bastion (video game)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm back again, a few more comments:
• "and went on to win and be nominated for awards at the 2011 Independent Games Festival and Electronic Entertainment Expo prior to release." This sentence has been bothering me a bit. Could it be clarified here whether it was nominated and awards won at both or was nominated at one and won at the other?
• Just noticed that in the first paragraph of Gameplay you start three sentences in a row with "The player". Also you use "the player" a lot in that section, though I guess it would be hard not to. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the resolution of File:Bastion screenshot.png is too high at 960x540, particularly in a lossless png format. And yet, the image size on the article is too small at default preferences (220px wide) and I can hardly make out any detail. I also think you can pick out a better screenshot, showing more enemies, action and colour. The narration was by far the most well received and original part of the game, it would be useful to have an audio snippet. I'm not sure how well this would work without the accompanying action, I'm not sure about whether our non-free guidelines rules out video, but even voice alone would convey the tone of the game and story. - hahnchen 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pain fitzJohn

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after patient research, as well as lots of copyediting, I think i've got a pretty complete view of this rather elusive Henry I's "new men". Pain was a relatively lowly nobleman who rose in Henry's service to control a very strategic position in the Welsh Marches, as well as one of England's most famous castles - Ludlow Castle. He and his brother were powerful magnates, but Pain died before his brother and did not found a long lived family as his brother did. The article is a complete new start, as I started it back in 2011, I've done all of the research as well as most of the writing. It's been kindly reviewed at GA, as well as having a nice peer review and other reviews by a number of editors - including Fifeloo, Nikkimaria, Brianbolton, and Ruhrfisch. It also has benefited from comments from Nev1 about Ludlow as well as a final polish by Malleus. Note - I'm competing in the Wikicup, but this article will NOT count for points, as most of the work/research/etc was done last year. I present to you - Pain fitzJohn, an nobleman who mixed with kings and earls in his lifetime but has largely fallen from historical sight since then. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks carried out on ODNB sources, no issues
• Multiple citations should be in ascending sequence, e.g. [[16][24] not [24][16]

Otherwise all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: I copyedited the article and made a few review suggestions, duly implemented. An excellent peek ito our vanished past when knights were bold...etc etc. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Wrightman's opinion of the man given his own paragraph? And the closing one? - hahnchen 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• If I could find other opinions on Pain's career or character, I'd have included them also. Wrightman's the only one who editorialized on him - originally I had it in with other paragraphs, but it doesn't really fit well anywhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you think his opinion is important, that's fine, I just thought it stuck out, possibly as undue weight given that Wrightman's book is focused on the Lacy side. - hahnchen 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Explain/define in lead: "..one of King Henry I of England's "new men".". Reader should not have to click on link to determine the significance of the "new men" term. Either define/explain right there, or later in lead.
• Ambiguous: "Pain was probably the eldest son of John fitzRichard..." - Ambiguous: need to specify what is uncertain: the "eldest" or that his father was JFR?
• Grave site: "He was buried in Gloucester Abbey .." - Is he still there? Can tourists visit the grave? Any photo available?
• Clarify: " ... as they are frequently found witnessing the same charters and other royal documents." - I presume "witness" means that they signed a document. Probably should explain that for lay readers.
• Define: "...and that the king "stationed them above earls and famous castellans" - I'm pretty well read but I have no clue what a castellan is. Someone who owns a castle? Someone from Castile?

• The more familiar French form is "Châtelain", and perhaps this could be pipelinked. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Verbose: " is not securely confirmed in " - The "securely" seems redundant. Remove? Or, if need to keep it, change to a more conventional adverb like positively or absolutely etc.
• Verbose: "... she was described as being a widow." - Could be simpler: " ... she was a widow" or "... she was described as a widow".
• Define: "... Henry gave Pain the lordships ..." - Define "lordship" for lay readers. Or, at least, link to WP article.
• Awkward wording: "... the date of their granting to Pain is unknown." - How would E. B. White phrase that?
• Define/explaiin: "...his payment for danegeld in 1130 ..." - Shouldn't have to click on "danegeld" to comprehend the meaning of the sentence.
• Punctuation: "On 10 July 1137 Pain was killed by a javelin blow to the head, during an ambush by the Welsh ..." - Move comma from after "head" to after "1137".

• If Ealdgyth moves that comma I'll buy a plane ticket to the US, hunt her down, and kill her. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• And I will personally conduct the burial service. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• All-in-all a fine article. I'm having a hard time finding any shortcomings.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Roy Dowling

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

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

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

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

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

Spotchecks:

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

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

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

I did do just that during the first FAC. I'm not going to not follow some advice due to some fear of losing face. Here's the page last week [1]. I changed the opening again because short of anyone telling me otherwise I was under the impression the opening was still regarded as falling short (tbh I forgot that the article opened that way because someone else suggested I do it that way).... Anyway, I'll change it back.

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

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

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

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

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

Common Tern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poppy Meadow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that Brian is absolutely right, so I've taken the liberty of hacking away ruthlessly at that overpowering blockquote. See what you think.[2] Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

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

Storylines

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

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

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

But the episode summary linked to doesn't mention that, so what's the point of the citation? It's not the summary that's the source, it's the episode itself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's the epsidoe itself, but eben though it may not be mentioned in the episodes summary, we still link it to that, as thats the nearest source to the epsiode itself. MayhemMario 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the tabloid part: "Her return was viewed more favourably; several Daily Mirror writers gave Poppy positive reviews, and The Sun's Colin Robertson criticised the termination of Bright's contract" still doesn't work, as it directly follows the obviously favourable Guardian review, and isn't more obviously favourable than that. Would you like me to have a go at it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind? Are you allowed to do that? I would be extremely grateful if you would. MayhemMario 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn- I'm glad to see this back here. I can't say I have any interest in EastEnders, but having a decent pop-culture fictional character article to point to would be a great thing.

• "the Queen Victoria pub" I don't think we need a link here- my reaction was that it was a link to an article on the pub

Somehow, during the process it must have got unlinked, beacuse it was linked to this, so I have relinked it.

• "Hawkins assessed the situation Poppy was in; as [Poppy] was loyal to Jodie, she felt she would effectively be lying to her if Darren did not confess." Is this meant to be a direct quote? What's going on here?

Changed Quote.

• In the storyline development section, you refer to "Darren (Hawkins)" but "Anthony Moon (Matt Lapinskas)". Both have already been introduced in the storyline section.

Done

• "Lapinskas deemed his character is "pleased that somebody likes him", and said that while he was also interested in Jodie, he was put "on the spot" by Poppy and so did what he thought was expected of him in asking her out." Tense switch.
• "on Tommy Moon dying of a cot death." Tommy Moon is linked above- also, you don't "die of a cot death" any more than you "die of A suicide".
• "excellently written – very The Only Way is Essex – and made me" Already linked further up. Also, that Moon quote feels very long. Perhaps trim or split it? If that's absolutely not possible, a blockquote?
• "commented on Poppy's return that" Clumsy phrase
• I'm not too keen on providing the publishers for all these newspapers and magazines- I'd normally just provide the name of the publication. That's your choice, though: As long as it's consistent.
• I'd also recommend trimming excessive capitals from article titles. This Is Not Easy To Read Even If The Other Website Likes It Like This. (Don't do that with book/magazine titles or anything, though. Just article titles.) I did one that was really rather unpleasant looking, but there are others.

This really is a decent article. I do feel that it is close to FA quality. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Image check: The single non-free image is appropriate and has a detailed rationale. It clearly meets the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Werner Hartenstein

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Triggered by the BBC mini series "The Sinking of the Laconia" I started investigating the life of Werner Hartenstein. I believe to have come very close to making this article featured. Please help me improve the article further. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistency review of sources

• Be consistent in how you notate foreign-language sources—esp. where you place the "(in German)" notice; before or after pub. & loc. details
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you notate multiple editors: with an ampersand, a semicolon or an "and"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you notate pub years: with brackets between the title and the author or with a comma after the publisher
  • done except for the last one. I can't get {{Cite book}} to render the year in the right place. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

--Eisfbnore ^talk 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you'll find the problem with the "cite book" is that no author fields have been filled in. If you put in the first/last fields that you have used in the others, or even "|author=Anon." then the year will go to the right place. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• File:Werner_Hartenstein_with_KC.jpg: "unique historic image" template doesn't seem to work here
  • Converted to {{Non-free fair use in}}. Is this appropriate? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• File:Pedernales_sinking.jpg needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I update the replaceability tag MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am once again nominating this for featured article. Since the last FAC nom it has undergone more improvements, another peer review, and another copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I believe the source and image review from the last attempt still applies as these were not changed. Thanks for your input in advance. DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments: It should be understood that the recent peer review only dealt with the lead and plot sections. After an intial readthrough of the article I have several issues :-

• The plot section contains a hidden note pointing out that the plot summary at present considerably exceeds the 400 to 700 wordlength guideline of WP:FILM.
  • I added that note myself to deter IP's from constantly adding to it after every trim I make. As you can see, they seem to ignore it. The word guideline is a case by case basis for films, but I will try to trim it down further. It seems that every time I do, either an IP will add to it, or a reviewer will say it isn't thorough enough. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I made some trims to the Plot. DrNegative (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know when Jules Verne's book was first published under the translated title A Journey to the Center of the Earth, with the AmEng spelling. Unless it was indeed in 1864, it would be more accurate to replace the year in the text with a note: "first published in 1864 as Voyage au centre de la Terre".
  • Added note clarifying. DrNegative (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I understand that the article has been copyedited, but there are some odd sentences. For example:-
  • "The character of Molière was originally intended to be professorial, but..." Professional in what sense?
    • I put professorial in quotation marks as it was quoted from the director from source #43, dictionary meaning: relating to, or characteristic of a professor. I am unsure what you are implying here. Do you feel I should paraphrase or did you misunderstand it? DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks like my misreading of "professorial"; sorry, please ignore this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Later: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial for the nostalgia evoked by the film's action-adventure setting." Can you explain what this means?
    • They were implying the film as a throwback to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and others of that genre which used CinemaScope. Do you fell that I should make it more clear and mention these examples? DrNegative (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe something like: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the Cinemascope format" – and give an example if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, fixed. DrNegative (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Later still, "Like Howard, Rydstrom employed different sounds for the two cultures." What "two cultures"? The term has not previously been used. (These three are examples only)
    • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is a tendency to overdetailing, particularly evident at the beginning of the "Writing" section. Why is it relevant to know that Whedon worked on Toy Story? Why is the very vague wording "about three to four months, plus or minus a few weeks" useful information? Towards the end of the same section we are even informed that Trousdale used spiral-bound notebooks – why is that significant?
  • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have not carried out a sources review, but three quick points:
  • I wonder if the star displays are necessary; is this some convention in film articles?
    • Film articles have used, and at times still use the star ratings when citing a film critic who uses them. It gives a scope of the critic's actual grade regardless of the prose covering him/her within the article. If it is a problem I can remove them though. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, what makes ReelViews.net a reliable source?
    • I would like to quote myself from the previous FAC in regards to your comment: "This is a site owned and maintained by notable web-critic James Berardinelli. Along with his site, he has also had books published which featured his site reviews. Notable film critic Roger Ebert has wrote his book forwards and considers him "the best of the Web-based critics." Rotten Tomatoes also considers him a "Top Critic", a title which they reserve for only the most notable film critics around the world." DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The link in ref 80 returns "page not found"
    • Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Images: There are three non-free images. I don't honestly think that the sketch of Milo and Kida can really be said to vital to readers' understanding. I would accept the other two.
  • I strongly disagree with you here. I have stated within the 'purpose of use' of the image description as to why I have included it within the article. That being so the reader can identify the unique character design employed within the film, which was heavily influenced by Mignola'a personal style. It displays the hands and faces where Mignola's influences are most prominent. It also gives context to the tidbit from Milo's lead animator and his inspirations for Milo's final design. Finally, instead of including a film-still, I chose production artwork, which qualifies as fair-use more so than a film-still, as it would not in any way, or in a much lesser way, tarnish the original commercial purpose of the film. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, be ready to defend your decision if others raise the point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert as far as film articles go, but in terms of its general structure and approach this looks reasonably promising. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments were handled in the PR; good luck! ResMar 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Guatemala

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedro de Alvarado crossed into what is now Guatemala in early 1524, three years after Hernán Cortés defeated the Aztecs, and found a region containing a complex mix of competing Mesoamerican kingdoms already ravaged by diseases accidentally introduced by the conquistadors. Thus began a series of conflicts that lasted around two hundred years as each of these kingdoms was conquered or evangelised. I rescued this page from a redirect in August 2011 and it passed GA in December. I am now satisfied that it covers all the major incidents of the conquest of Guatemala and have done what I can to iron out any problems before bringing it here. The article is comprehensive and stable; I hope that FA review will further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on References section
I know that the main requirement with referencing is for consistency but I would...

• Remove all the explicit pp. from the references. The template will insert them for edited books. A number of references currently have "pp. pp."

I've done this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Use the jstor= parameter for the journal articles available from jstor – instead of linking the title. It is then clear that a subscription is required.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omit the oclc number where an isbn is available

On Worldcat, an ISBN can point to multiple entries while an oclc points to a specific entry so I prefer to keep both. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Simplify the "6th edition, fully revised and expanded ed" to "6th ed.", the "5th, revised and enlarged ed" to "5th ed.", etc

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Give only the first publication place where several are listed by the publisher.

I prefer to give the complete information. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the "Citations" section, insert a space between the pp. and the page number.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• (and I don’t like the use of small caps – I find them more difficult to read)

The use of small caps is fairly standard at WikiProjects Mesoamerica and Central America. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this - it's a bit tidier now. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to cite books by Robert M. Carmack written in Spanish? Has he published similar material in English? His English publications have similar titles. Aa77zz (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of his works may also have been published in English (but not Historia Social de los K'iche's as far as I know). However, I bought my copies in Guatemala and don't have access to English language versions; page numbers would not be the same in any case. Carmack's books are solid referencing for the K'iche' and the fact that they are in Spanish shouldn't make a difference. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where possible you should use English sources – see WP:NOENG – "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The titles obviously aren't identical but is Carmack, Robert M. (2001b): "Kik'ulmatajem le K'iche'aab': Evolución del Reino K'iche'" the same as "The Quiché Mayas of Utatlán: the evolution of a highland Guatemala" First published in 1981, reprinted in 2012? If it is then you should use the (original?) English edition. Aa77zz (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And I would use the English version if I had it but I don't. Where English texts are available, I've used them. In an article upon the history of Guatemala, Spanish texts should not be unexpected, and I've had no problems with using Spanish texts in previous FAs. WP:NOENG points out that an English text is preferred (not demanded) if I have one available, that is not the case. Carmack is a reliable source, and I only have the text in Spanish. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Polo Sifontes, Francis (unknown). Zaculeu: Ciudadela Prehispánica Fortificada. Guatemala" This seems not to be generally available – I cannot find it listed in the Library of Congress catalog or by using google. Is it published? I expect to be able to verify the information without visiting the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala. Aa77zz (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is published; I can't seem to find it under my book mountain at the moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in it that isn't supported in the other sources, so I've removed it as redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on prose

• There are a few 'due to's in the article which need to be replaced by 'owing to' or 'because of'. 'Due to' is adjectival and should hence only be directly attached to a conjugated form of 'to be' (like 'the cancellation of the concert was due to the rain), whilst 'owing to' is adverbial and can therefore be attached to all other verbs (like 'the concert was cancelled owing to the rain'). 'Because of' ought to be used when its sentence can answer a 'Why?' question w/o a full sentence. Another good rule of thumb is that 'due to' can only be used when 'attributable to', 'caused by' or 'resulting from' also would work. And never start a sentence w/ it.

• I've replaced all instances with alternate phrasing. You might want to cast your eye over it to check the changes are all OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good. There were a couple of places where I would have used 'because of' instead, but I'm not a native speaker of English, so I cannot be sure. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "New crops were also introduced but sugarcane and coffee led to the plantations that came to economically exploit native labour." → "New crops were also introduced; however, sugarcane and coffee led to plantations that economically exploited native labour."

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Guatemalan society is divided into a class system largely based on race, with Maya peasants and artisans at the bottom, with the mixed-race Ladino salaried workers and bureaucrats forming the middle and lower class and above them the creole elite of pure European ancestry."—bin the second 'with'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Make sure that all year ranges are separated with dashes and not hyphens.

• I think I've changed them all. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pedro de Alvarado's brother Jorge wrote another account to the king of Spain explaining that it was his own campaign of 1527-1529 that established the Spanish colony."—swap 'explaining' for 'that explained' to remove noun+present participle construction.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is the article written in Brit. or Am. Eng.? I find both 'neighbouring' and 'percent'.

• Whoops - that's British English; I've fixed that "percent". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Although it was well-planned the rebellion was quickly crushed and its leaders were executed; most of the mission towns were abandoned as a result."—my eyes would prefer a comma after 'well-planned'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Tlaxcalan allies of the Spanish who accompanied them in their invasion of Guatemala wrote their own accounts of the conquest, these included a letter to the Spanish king protesting at the poor treatment of these allies once the campaign was over."—comma splice

• I've swapped it for a semi-colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Caption: "Relief map of Guatemala showing the three broad geographical areas; the southern Pacific lowlands, the highlands and the northern Petén lowlands"—replace the semicolon w/ a colon or an em-dash.

• I've swapped it for a colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "At the same time as the Spanish were occupied with the overthrow of the Aztec empire a terrible plague struck the Kaqchikel capital of Iximche"—comma after 'empire'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal, instead harassing the allies of Spain in the region" → "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal; instead they reputedly harassed the allies of Spain in the region."

• I'm not clear why this needs "reputedly". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevermind the 'reputedly'; I just want to get rid of the gerund construction. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the gerund can easily be changed without changing the meaning of the sentence in some way - and in this case the gerund is preferable since the harassment was an ongoing process at the time when Cortés was informed. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More to come. Eisfbnore ^talk 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking this over, I've been staring at it for so long sometimes I just don't see the mistakes! Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure; I will continue the review as soon as I am able. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the lead image so huge?

• I've changed this to 300px as recommended for a lead image at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, can't say I see much difference on my screen though. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• PD-old requires that you also include a US PD tag

• I've had a look at the PD-US tags over on Commons and I'm not sure which one to use, maybe PD-1996? Simon Burchell (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Guatemala_Topography.png: what is SRTM?

• That would be Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hernán_Cortés,_Museo_de_América.jpg: source link seems to be broken

• I've put in a link to Waybackmachine. The original pic doesn't seem to have been captured by the archive (just a broken frame) but the click to see larger version does work. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Bartolomedelascasas.jpg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Imported from English wikipedia(!) Original file long gone by the looks of it. I can replace it with File:Bartolome de las casas.jpg, which was taken from Bartholomew de Las Casas; his life, apostolate, and writings by Francis Augustus MacNutt, 1909 (available at Project Gutenberg, just scroll down slighlty). Simon Burchell (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment about the table. I've made it accessible by adding row and col scopes, but I note that if you wish it to be sortable, I think you need to fix the dates column to sort correctly (i.e. by date), probably using the {{dts}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I've long wondered how to get dates to sort in tables. Any idea how to get the "February - March 1524" to sort correctly (sort as February 1524 but displayed as "February-March 1524" would be fine)? All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. You could use the {{dtsh}} template to sort as February 1524 and then just have "February-March 1524" as free text straight afterwards, I think that'd do the trick! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perfect! All sorting fine now - many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome, glad to be of assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Question The table has no citations. Is all the information contained within the table also present elsewhere in the article? If not then the source(s) for the info in the table should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's right, all the info is taken from the article body and is cited in the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ferugliotherium

Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last nominated an article at FAC, but I figured that we need some more fossil mammal teeth here, so I'm bringing you this article. Ferugliotherium lived in Argentina just before the big dinosaurs went extinct, and it's part of an unusual group of extinct mammals—the gondwanatheres—that I'm producing a series of articles on. I'm looking forward to seeing your reviews. Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support and comments from Jim Why are my teeth itching? Usual highly competent stuff, some minor comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we link countries now (Argentina)
• "honors" twice in taxonomy para 1, perhaps change one to "commemorates" or similar
• Incertae sedis is italicised, I think correctly, in its own article
• "wear facet" — I can't see the point of red-linking this unless its meaning isn't what it appears to be, in which case there should be a gloss
• "Dentary" I think is technical enough to need a link or gloss
• Bonaparte (1986) is presumably in Spanish, which should be indicated
• Bonaparte (1986) — what's the point of the url when there's no text at the end of it, just a confirmation that the book exists

• Thanks; I've corrected most of these. As for the last one, it does lead to a snippet view of the text in America. Ucucha (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: I've started reading the article, haven't finished yet. Not the sexiest topic, but it seems very well written thus far though.
• "an enigmatic tooth from the Paleogene of Santa Rosa, Peru" Could you link to the specific Santa Rosa? There are a few Santa Rosas in Peru.
• "the lower-crowned Ferugliotherium was more likely an insectivore or omnivore, like similar multituberculates such as Mesodma," Would it be possible to avoid the "likely... like" here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I've changed "likely" to "probably". The Santa Rosa meant here is not any of those listed on the dab page; it's in Atalaya Province. I linked it to Santa Rosa local fauna in the article on LACM 149371 and will try to make time to write an article about the (very interesting) fossil site. Ucucha (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, sounds good. No offense intended about the un-sexiness of the topic, I'm sure it reflects more on my admittedly short attention span than anything else.
      • No problem; I didn't even mean to refer to your comment about sexiness. Ucucha (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• In the last paragraph of Taxonomy you start three sentences in a row with "In [year]...", maybe try to vary that a bit? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded. Ucucha (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The identity of a few additional isolated premolars assigned to Ferugliotherium, some also resembling multituberculates, is also uncertain." Is there a good way to avoid the "also... also" here?
  • Removed the first one. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Ferugliotherium is known from isolated teeth, the assignment of some of which is controversial." Is there a good way to avoid the "of some of which" here?
  • I can't think of one right now, but don't think the current wording is very bad either. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Your duplicate linking script is highlighting the first couple links of the Upper molariforms section and four of the first five links in the Range and ecology section.
  • All of those are linked previously in the taxonomy section, separated by a lot of dental anatomy. I think it's reasonable to link them again down in the lower part of the article, particularly because some of the things that are linked multiple times (e.g., the formations) are discussed in the most detail there, and it makes sense to enable readers to click through to the articles on the formations in that section. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, no problem, I just thought I'd bring it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The three incisor fragments are identified as Ferugliotherium because of their size and provenance" I can never remember the rule about when to use "because of" vs "due to" and "owing to", do you know if it is being used correctly here? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Because of" sounds best to me here, but I'm happy to change it if that's thought necessary. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, I've examined the article's prose as best I can and any real issues that I could find have been dealt with so I'm ready to Support on prose/presentation/MOS. (I know very little about the subject matter so I'm not qualified to judge in that respect.) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think total pages for Gurovich is needed
• What does n.s. stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • New series. I've unabbreviated it. As for Gurovich, I don't see why not, since I also give total page numbers for books. Thanks for the review. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness - I reviewed this for GA and found little to complain about then. The article straddles the line between accessibility and exact meaning using technical words well as anything that can be described in plain English is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken-Hearted Girl

Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I like the song and I have worked a lot on the article. It has also been copy-edited by another editor and I am very thankful to him. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. Your help and suggestions are most welcome. With the essential being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Jivesh boodhun. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - This is not my area of expertise, but at the nominator's request I ran an eye over the prose, and found nothing to grumble at. As far as I can see, this article is comprehensive, well-balanced, and the nominator's enthusiasm for the performer has not led him into gush. It seems to me to meet FAC criteria. Well done! Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Excellent AmE style compliance, I couldn't find anything significant to comment on in the lead. Some nitpicks:

• I don't think it's all too necessary to wikilink production here
  • Completely re-worded sentence due to concern raised below. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "and gain some perspective" Anything in particular the perspective was to be gained on?
  • I didn't find anything related to this in the body of the article so this part of the sentence was removed all together. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Will read through soon. Auree ^★★ 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, done reading through. I made a light copy-edit, please review. The article is generally well written, but I have some concerns:

• "I suppose many of our songs are in minor keys. We probably lean towards more a moody, melodic expression. It's what comes most natural[ly] for us." Has the quoted text here really been modified for reader convenience, or has it been corrected? If the latter, consider using [sic] instead.
  • I removed the "[ly]". However, I did not add a [sic] because I didn't think it is a very obvious error that will intrigue an average reader and I think we can get away with it because it is an interview. I can add the sic if needed anyway, though. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of Writing and production, there are three consecutive sentences with the same inline citation; citing only the last sentence would suffice.
  • Removed the second instance. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Is it correct to address the music video protagonist by "Knowles"?
  • I've copy edited the section. Instances of "Knowles" and "the singer" have been replaced with "the protagonist", "the woman" and "Knowles' character". Let me know if this is confusing. I'll be happy to re-work it. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Better, although a few "she"s here and there wouldn't hurt either

• Replaced one instance with "she". I tried not to overdo it due to repetition. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "she is desirous of spending" Tighten to "she wants to spend"?
  • Tightened. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "produced a new version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" to be marketed in European territories." Slightly awkward
  • Re-worded to "... produced a different version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" that was released in Europe." —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• What is a "maxi single"?
  • Linked to the article. Will this suffice? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• We read ""Broken-Hearted Girl" received a favorable response from most music critics, who appreciated Knowles' vocals and the piano backing, but were unimpressed with the production", but quite frankly, the following doesn't quite tell us in what ways they were unimpressed with the production. What exactly is meant to be said here?
  • Good observation. I only found one review which dismissed the arrangement. I re-worded it to a more neutral "... who commented the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." I did a similar thing in the lead. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Nissim concluded that "the emotion-filled vocals offer yet more proof that [Knowles] is one of the finest pop singers of her generation", but "Broken-Hearted Girl" is unfortunately not as catchy as her best work" The latter part with "unfortunately" is unquoted, but reads like editorial opinion. Either include that part in the quote or remove "unfortunately".
  • I added an "although" before the quotation and removed "but unfortunately". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• The repetition of "on which it" in the Chart performance section gets a bit tedious after a while. Can we add some variety here?
  • Added variety with re-structuring. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Also, check throughout for stubby, closely related sentences that could be combined (e.g. "In Australia, "Broken-Hearted Girl" debuted at number twenty-eight on the ARIA Singles Chart on September 21, 2009.[55] The following week, it ascended to number fifteen.[55]" and "On October 5, 2009, the song reached its peak position at number fourteen, and remained there for an additional week.[55] It lasted for nine consecutive weeks on the chart.") Again, watch out for duplicate consecutive inline citations.
  • Have thoroughly checked and combined sentences and checked for repeated redundant citations. Any citation that was consecutively placed three or more times was fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Any notable negative reception of her music video? Auree ^★★ 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I did a search and found nothing from highly trusted reliable sources. I'll see if Jivesh finds anything.
    A huge thanks for a great review and copy edit. I think your suggestions have helped a lot for the article's best. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, all of your changes look good and have much improved the prose. I'll be happy to support in due time, although I would like to see some input from other reviewers before doing so. Good luck! Auree ^★★ 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing negative about the video. Seems like Beyonce won the critics with her panda eyes. :) And thanks Auree. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• It might be worth noting that some of the refs require having iTunes to access

• May I know which ones Nikki? I don't think there are ones like that. All of them work irrespective of having or not having iTunes. I don't have iTunes, yet they work for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was trying to open FNs 33 and 34, to see why they looked exactly the same. 34 loaded normally as a website, but for 33 I got a message saying it was trying to connect to iTunes. There are several other pairs of iTunes refs that look the same - I just tried 35 and 36, and 36 opened my iTunes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Excite is owned by IAC Search & Media, which is a subsidiary of InterActive Corporation (IAC).
• Allkpop is a well-known website in Korea. Owned and operated by parent company 6Theory Media, it generates more Web traffic than any Korean music portal in South Korea. Exclusive interviews with celebrities include Brian Joo, SECRET, Block B, 2PM, Wonder Girls, Girls' Generation, Girl's Day, 2NE1 who covered the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Need more - do we know who the authors are, what the site editorial policies are? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For both? I thought I was clear enough for the second. It should not be regarded differently just because it is not a website based in the US or the UK. I can remove the first nevertheless. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nikki, I have removed the first one. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Nominator(s): SabreBD (talk) and Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We are nominating this article because we believe it meets the criteria for construction and style. The article has not been peer reviewed, but was recently promoted to GA status and points for further improvement noted in that process have been implemented and sufficient time has elapsed for editors to consider and implement some further changes. As the major recent editors of the article are the editors most likely to be able to implement any suggestions and requirements that arise as a result of the FA process.SabreBD (talk) and Scieberking (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The lead contains this sentence, repeated in the text: "The band are widely considered to be one of the most successful, innovative and influential groups in the history of music." This, as stated, seems a touch hyperbolic, and does not seem to be evidenced in these extreme terms by the sources. I suggest you modify by rephrasing as "...in the history of rock music." Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would change it to "history of popular music", as they have not only influenced rock musicians.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a source that says this for popular music, so I suggest adjusting both instances to fit that and adding the reference to the main body.--SabreBD (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not entirely happy with the source I had in my back pocket, so I have adjusted the sentence slightly to say they were one of the most influential rock bands in popular music and provided a source that supports that. Happy to discuss this solution or others.--SabreBD (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• No citations to "Could a Robert Plant-free Led Zeppelin tour succeed?" or MacBain
• FN 50: page(s)?
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
• Ranges should use endashes
• Be consistent in whether or not ranges are abbreviated
• Be consistent in whether website names are upper- or lower-case, and whether shortened citations using them include the .com (or similar)
• Be consistent in how websites are formatted
• FN 167, 171, 184: page(s)?
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books, and if so what information is included
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Rey 1997? This? This?
• ISBN for Cope?
• Why so many citations to Britannica?
• Publisher for Grossman, Hunter?
• ISBN and publisher for Fortnam?
• Be consistent in how Guardian and Rolling Stone refs are notated
• Page(s) for Pond 1988?
• Where in Ontario was Rey published?
• How are you ordering works with no author? It's mostly alphabetical by publication, but not always
• Be consistent in what location info is included for books and how it is formatted

Oppose at this point, as there are too many problems with references. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this process discourages breaking up comments it is probably easiest to say that I believe I have resolved these issues, with the few exceptions below. (To follow what has been done and how, it is probably easiest to look at the recent article history.) However, this is quite complex so I may have missed something or made an error, and if so please let me know. Issues that I have not implemented are: the interview at This - as I think a case can be made in an interview like this to say this is a reliable source, unless we have reason to believe the interview is not genuine. If that is not acceptable I will find a substitute or remove the text it supports. I was also unsure what point was being made about Britannica (Fast 2011): I can only see this used for one reference - perhaps there is some confusion (or a now resolved technical issue) with the book by the same person (Fast 2001), which is the key musicological text on the band.--SabreBD (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment about the opening line: "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band"; shouldn't it be "Led Zeppelin was an English rock band" as we're talking about only ONE band and the name is singular (as opposed to, say, The Beatles, which is a plural name)? Jimknut (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In British English all bands are treated as plural - see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.--SabreBD (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Seili (album)

Nominator(s): Frous (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it has what it takes to be considered one. Frous (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Commments about linking: No dabs, but it looks like there's one dead link on the page, and a little bit of repeated wikilinking. Also, I don't think countries are generally wikilinked per WP:OVERLINK. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Done: Dead link fixed. -- Frous (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. About overlinking, is this version ok?[3] -- Frous (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, overlinking seems to be cleared up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please do not use "done" (or other) templates, per FAC instructions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources minus spotchecks.

• The lead does not require citations unless there are direct quotations or information that is not in the body of the article.
• Please make sure reference numbers are ordered numerically. For example, [15][16][11].
• I question how these are high quality reliable sources: technodisco.net, lyrics.com, soundi.fi. I'm not necessarily saying they are unreliable, but an explanation as to how they are reliable would be nice.
• Likewise Stara and Iskelma.fi? The FN 17 iskelma.fi link also does not seem to return any text and it is hard to verify whether it supports the cited statements.
• FN 1 is MTV3 and its publisher is Bonnier Group. Be consistent as to whether both the work and publisher for MTV3 references are provided. Same with the Rovi Co. ref, the work of which is AllRovi.
• First charts table must be formatted per WP:ACCESS.

That's about it. Spotchecks pending. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Soundi is Finnish music periodical. According to Finnish Periodical Publishers' Association,[4] Soundi's circulation is 25,000 and the association describes it as "by far the most popular rock periodical in Finland".[5] -- Frous (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific with the charts table, what do I have to do to it? -- Frous (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The first reference is MTV3 Store Download, a music shop owned by MTV3. So, I guess the proper "publisher" is there MTV3 Store Download, but by convenience it links to MTV3 because that hasn't any article yet. -- Frous (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

S*it, Iskelmä seems to have deleted the article. Anyway, I found a somewhat similar description of Seili's polarized nature from one Rumba article. -- Frous (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by ordering reference numbers numerically? Many of those sources provide information that is relevant in different spots of the text, so they get mixed. I don't see any common sense in putting the same source in several cite web templates, if that's what you're asking for. -- Frous (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've formatted the table. As for the reference numbers, that's the way it's always been done. I'm not asking you put the same source in multiple citation templates. Just re-order the "<ref></ref>" and "<ref name=/>"s. It works. I'll give other replies soon. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not very familiar with all the referencing details, I still don't get what you mean. How can I even put the refs [15][16][11] in numerical order, with the source no. 11 being used earlier in the text, before the refs no. 15 and 16? -- Frous (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. However, this will really never be an issue. Try it and revert if it does not work, although I do not understand why it shouldn't. By text, you mean the whole article right? If, by text, you mean just the sentence that is being cited, don't worry. This has always been encouraged and done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the whole text. I really have NO idea of how to put those [15][16][11] in numerical order, without using the cite web template twice with the same source. Can you explain to me what I have to do, in simple English? Thanks. -- Frous (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Billy Butlin

Nominator(s): Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a well written and engaging read about a significant individual who was well known in the UK during the 20th Century, I took it to GA and Peer Review in June of last year and felt it was then in the condition required of a Featured Article but I did not have the time to put it forward then. I just did the final checks and corrected a few rotted links and submit it as ready. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick check, leaning toward oppose: Auree ^★★ 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: Essex is linked twice in close proximity in the First holiday camps section, and why are there wikilinks to common terms such as summer camp, amusement park and haunted house (which is erroneously linked to a Disney Land attraction)?
• Link for Ref 47 in Websites returns an error.
• Refs 2, 35 and 37 contain redirecting links. Title for Ref 2 needs to be updated as well, and why is Ref 37's title capitalised?
• There's a raw </ref> tag in the bibliography section... and several raw urls and generally poorly formatted refs exist in References.
• Books don't need retrieval dates, and watch out for excess punctuation (Co..)
• I won't give a detailed source review for the references, but in addition to the above I'm seeing a lot of formatting inconsistencies, such as, but not limited to date notations, whether newspaper locations are given or not, errors in punctuation, etc. Actually, I'm seeing a lot of them without having given it a thorough check, so I'm inclined to oppose based hereupon. Auree ^★★ 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've done an OVERLINK clearup - I would say that the terms amusement park and summer camp, and even Haunted House aren't quite as well known in the UK as they may be in other parts of the world so linking them still seems appropriate.
• Link 47 - The Grand Order of Water Rats Obituaries for 2003 still works fine for me - were you getting a specific error.
• Redirects and titles fixed,

• Seems it was just due to my connection then. Wikiinking and urls have been fixed now. Auree ^★★ 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed the formatting errors and removed the book access dates.
• The additional punctuation was due to the cite template adding an extra period. I've removed the contraction period on Co to fix.
• Generally I've preserved source name and title as given by the source but I will work on formatting these consistently. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Spent a lot of time on this this afternoon and have hopefully cleaned them all up. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read the whole article yet, but at a glace it looks like a copyedit might be needed. For example in the First holiday camps section it looks like you have inconsistent comma usage: "In 1936 Butlin had proposed a new holiday camp..." and "On 30 January 1937, Butlin turned his business into a..." about a paragraph apart. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's been copyedited twice now, (as well as by myself), obviously this has been missed, hopefully not much else has been. I've reworded the first sentence as it seemed to scan better in the new wording. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, that wording is better. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - it's an interesting article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Specifically:

• 1a/d: there are grammatical errors (ex. "Butlin soon learned that the more likely people were to win; the more they would spend") and some problems with unencyclopedic tone (ex. "Butlin decided to set his own course in life and made his way back to England with only £5 to his name")
• 1c: a couple of unsourced statements (ex. "launched a friendly takeover for £43 million (2011:£423 million), which both Butlin and his son agreed to accept.")
• 1c: use of questionable sources, for example this
• 2: WP:MOS violations, for example inappropriate capitalization in "Cherie is an Actress"
• 2c: multiple inconsistently-formatted citations
• 3: media problems - File:William_Butlin_Signature.png is tagged as lacking author info (should be easy to fill in), and according to Commons Canada applies copyright protection to signatures; same issues apply to File:Billy_Butlin_Attestation_Paper_(Front).gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

those examples are now reworded - I'm sure the latter is a paraphrase of a Butlin quote but I can't identify the source to change it into a direct quote. Are there any other examples giving you concern?

All statements should be covered by the sources given. I've inserted a page number for that particular piece of information, and can only see another situation where (like the lede) the claim is cited elsewhere so a separate cite isn't given but I will do another sweep.

Ideally the song should have been a source about it's own lyrics, but we don't have a citation style for that - Hence the use of the web. The information in the source is verifiable and neutrally presented so shouldn't be a concern - but I've switched to a web newspaper instead.

I've done a thorough regexp search and can't see any other inappropriate capitalizations, though there are situations where I might have believed the noun to be proper (such as "battalion" in 170th (Mississauga Horse) Battalion) and have continued to retain these unless you feel they are also inappropriate?

Citations should be generally consistent now though I'm still double and triple checking.

These shouldn't be a problem; Butlin provided his signature under Crown Copyright (and this form has been released as such by the Canadian government) limiting copyright to 50 years from creation (meaning it went PD 14 years before Butlin died) - I've added author information as bes I can. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral Comments/suggestions: G'day, I made some minor tweaks to the early life section, please check that you agree with my changes and tweak as necessary. I didn't have a look at the full article; my area of interest is military history, so I mainly only looked at the Early life section. I have the following suggestions:
  • "His intention had been to sign up as a despatch rider, as the army already had a full quota..." Full quota of what? Do you mean full quota of infantry? It seems a little confused here;
  • do you know the date of when Butlin arrived in England?
  • do you know the date of when the 216th arrived in France?
  • do you know the date of when Butlin returned to England after the war (I assume that it was sometime in late 1918 or early 1919, but I might be wrong);
  • "works out at 1 in 700 for a 3 ring game". I think that this should be "works out at 1 in 700 for a 3-ring game";
  • in the World War II section there is a red linked image. I'm not sure if this has been deleted, or if the syntax is wrong;
  • there are some capitalisation issues, for instance "Shirley (Born 1931 to Dolly)". This should probably just be "Shirley (born 1931 to Dolly)" (there are a few examples similar to this);
  • the heading "Bibliographic Notes" should probably be "Bibliographic notes" per WP:Section caps;
  • the page ranges in the Bibliographic Notes section should probably use endashes instead of hyphens, and instances of multiple pages should probably use "pp." rather than the singular "p.";
  • there is some inconsistency in the date format used for the Retreived dates for the websites. For instance compare "12 June 2011" against "November 3, 2010";
  • in the Bibliography, the capitalisation of the titles probably should be tweaked in a few cases. For instance The Bantams: the untold story of World War I, probably should be The Bantams: The Untold Story of World War I (there are a few other examples that also should be adjusted to follow suite). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The Army had a full quota of dispatch riders - His intent was to sign up to be one, they would say "sorry, but our quota is full" and he would get a badge without actually having to serve.
      • Ah yes, I understand now. Sorry, for some reason I was misreading that bit. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I had a go at rewording it. I think it is a little clearer now. Please check that you agree and adjust if you see fit. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't have any dates - The two relevant sources Allinson, and Dacre I only have in snippet form and while it might be able to extract dates from them I haven't been able to do so yet.
    • Dash added to 3-Ring.
    • Fixed - it was accidentally broken in a semi automated case correction,
    • "Bibliographic notes" corrected and also page ranges.
    • Dates should all be fixed now.
    • Capitalisation generally follows Google Books Usage, but I'm happy to tweak these.
    • I Still have the other capitalisation errors such as (Born.. to fix but will repair these as soon as possible. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A Couple of other date corrections done, and the capitalisations done also. I've also spent some time reworking most of the references correcting wrong/missing/miscategorised information and parameters. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Your adjustments look good. I've had another quick look and had a go at doing some copy editing. I found a few things that needed smoothing, but I don't think I know enough about the topic to give it a proper go. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
          • No need to apologise, the work you've done already is a big help and much appreciated. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Len Hutton

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Len Hutton was arguably one of the most important cricketers of the 20th century; one of England's best batsmen and the first professional to captain England officially, he also remains the holder of the highest Test innings by an England player. There was also plenty of controversy thrown in, mostly not of his making. I have been working on this article for a long time now. It is currently a GA and received a peer review recently. Brianboulton has also provided excellent comments and performed a copy-edit. I am aware that the article is on the long side but Hutton packed more than most into his career and I'm not sure too much more could be cut down and still keep it comprehensive. All comments gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Only had a quick look of this, will post more if I have the time:

• Ref 2 is dead.
• "and he wrote for The News of the World", does 'The' need to be capitalised? Wikilink should be on 'News of the World'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Both done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Have reviewed through the Leading batsman sub-section so far...

• Remove second "the" from "he was the mainstay of the England's batting."
• "and did so for the remained of his career." "remained" → "remainder". Don't particularly like seeing two glaring prose issues in the lead, where they should have been spotted already.
• Early life: I see Joseph Verity and Verity's here. Does the name have the 's at the end, or is the latter usage missing a word afterward?
• Test record score: Excess comma after "Hutton maintained caution throughout".
• Series against South Africa and West Indies: "two days its conclusion, the Second World War began." Needs an "after" before "its", I believe.
• First tour in Australia: "Nevertheless, he scored scored 1,552 runs at an average of 48.50." Double word in there.
• Series against South Africa and West Indies: "Hutton played immediately he arrived against British Guiana". Could perhaps use another "after". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• All done. Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Leading batsman: Add "the" in "followed by 123 in fourth game".
• Australia 1950–51: "under the captaincy of the amateur Brown. Brown...". Try to avoid this repetition from one sentence to the next.
• Ashes victory: In "Hutton was retained by English captain", is "by" intended to be "as"?
• Batting: "He was The official Yorkshire history describes him...". First two words should be chopped.
• Redundancy in "One such innings was his innings of 37...".
• For consistency, a space is needed between the page numbers and pp. in ref 26. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• All done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to Support: I did a long post-PR review which is to be found on the talkpage, and would like to see what other reviewers have to say before committing myself to full support. My general view is that the article is close to, if not already fulfilling, the FA criteria; maybe a few more brisk prose tweaks (I just did one myself), but not much else required? After further adjustments during this process I am convinced the article is eady for promotion now. The quality of WP cricket articles is definitely on the up, in no small measure due to Sarastro (who with a name like that really ought to be writing opera articles). Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• (added comment and strikes) Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Much obliged for the help and kind remarks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Hodgson
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
• Be consistent in whether page notation includes a space or not
• FN 40: ISBN?
• Check for wikilinking consistency
• Be consistent in which locations include counties. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. All done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest removing "learned his cricket" from caption
• File:Hutton.jpg: "unique historic image" use requires that the photo itself is the subject of commentary. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, better. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional support – All of my comments above have been resolved and I believe this meets the FA criteria. The only reason this is provisional is that I want to see an image review check out before switching to a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Sorry, didn't see that an image review was already done. Switching to full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments beginning a read through now. Will copyedit as I go (please revert any changes which guff the meaning), and jot notes below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Marked out as a potential star from his teenage years, Hutton made his debut for Yorkshire in 1934 and quickly established himself - as a.....damn the sentence just seems to end. I think if we could reword it, it'd read nicer.....

• Reworked slightly. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• yup Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

including an innings of 271, and a partnership of 315 with Sutcliffe - does Howat mention the games these came in? Were they the same or different? Mentioning them would be a good way of showing the reader (I also like promoting state/county games :))

• Done; both games in the same week, actually, which I included. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "established himself. ... established himself" in the lead is repetitive.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the amateurs who ran English cricket" could be read two ways! Can you clarify who "ran English cricket"?

• Excellent point, which I fixed, but also made me realise the article did not really talk about the amateur-professional class thing going on at the time. I've added a couple of sentences to clarify this in the captaincy section for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with cricket sociology in the 1950s! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder if it's not too crass to add a link to Test cricket records somewhere in the article?

• Not a huge fan of this idea, unless you can suggest a good place to put it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "county batsman" vs "County cap", is there a reason the second county is capitalised?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "his first two innings were failures" this may be a little tough for non-cricket types to grasp... can it be quantified?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "to prevent his overexposure to Championship cricket" maybe you don't know the answer to this, but what would have been wrong with him playing Championship cricket all the time?

• The source states that the committee were "nurturing their young plant", but not why; the only other possible source for this is Hutton's first autobiography but there is no real reason here either as I imagine it was obvious to them: to prevent burnout or damage to his confidence or technique. But no source to say this that I can find, unless I've overlooked something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "he had scored only 73 runs in total" perhaps "scored a total of just 73 runs"?

• Changed, but don't see much difference myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Selected for a Test trial" quickly followed by "selected for the first Test " is a little monotonous.

• Perhaps, but I can't see a way around it here. The Test trial needs to be called that to avoid ambiguity, and it needs to be specified that he was selected for a Test match (just saying first game against NZ would not work without some tortuous construction to say it was a match for England, not Yorkshire or anyone else). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "he surpassed the previous highest Test score by an England batsman in a home match." is that referenced somewhere?

• Yes, in the ref from Wisden at the end of the sentence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "On the third day (23 August)" so they had a rest day? Worth noting? Ah, "Next day, the Yorkshire batsmen "... it looks like, according to the scorecard, it wasn't the next day, they had the 21st as a rest day...

• Fixed, and well spotted. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "in all matches 1,874 runs " if it were me, I'd have "1,874 runs in all matches..."

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "supposedly "timeless" Test - when he scored 364, that was also "timeless" right? Would consider talking about that earlier?

• It does actually say so when mentioning Hutton's slow scoring. I'm not sure it is worth saying more as the article is already long without something fairly minor being clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just out of interest, could you use Cricinfo's Statguru to list out his batting performances being specific about whether they were for Test matches or county matches etc using filters? I find that Cricketarchive page quite unhelpful!

• All his Test innings are referenced to Statsguru; but that database doesn't cover county games. The Cricketarchive page could be filtered in this way, but there is no way that I know of to link to the results, and so the only way is the complete list page used here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should "high profile" be hyphenated?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "which lost the four-Test series 2–0 and failed to win a single match" the second part is obvious from the first unless you're referring to the entire tour (which may have included other matches?), in which case it's not clear.

• Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Miller bowled him " forgive me, can you just ensure you linked "bowled" in this context?

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to link Bill O'Reilly!

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "as astonishing" should that astonishment be in quotes?

• Not sure it matters, but did so to be on the safe side. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "in 1951 with " personal preference but "in the 1951 season with..." would be better for me, linking "1951 season" instead of just the year.

• Actually, I thought I'd unlinked all the seasons as I find it rather annoying when all the seasons are linked for no obvious reason. So I unlinked this one. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "against Nottinghamshire and " I believe this to be one of the only (if not, the only) time you link an opposition county cricket club. I was going to ask why you hadn't linked them all, but now I'm having to ask why you'd link just that one?!

• They are all linked, but only on their first mention, so the links may be at various points throughout. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "a fast rate of scoring." I know that, you know that, but prove it!

• Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note 1 could use reference.

• Done (I think). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 146 could use an author and a publication date.

• Changed it to a more up-to-date one anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 228 could use a publication date.

• Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Never keen on the succession boxes, really don't think they're necessary, but if you're going to keep them, en-dash required for the year range as England captain.

• Nor am I, took it out.

• Don't need Category:English cricketers (already covered by more specific categories).

• OK, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• ICC HoF and Wisden COTY awards are mentioned in the categories but not in the text. These are pretty prestigious awards...

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• CoY is mentioned (it was early in his career). I would argue that in the context of Hutton's career, HoF is not prestigious enough to include, to be honest. Given the relative quality of players included, I don't think this says much about him. The World XI selection would seem to give more weight to his "position". And as the article is so long, I'm not keen to include the relatively trivial award.

• Thanks for the review and comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support nothing outstanding that I feel should stop me supporting the article. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: TRM brought up most of the issues that I had, saves me the effort, eh! One minor point, more a personal preference really: wouldn't "before and after the Second World War.." be better written as "either side of the Second World War.."? As usual, really nice work on this article. Harrias ^talk 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think, unless others object, I prefer the current sentence, as "side" when referring to the war can have confusing connotations! Thanks for the support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington quarter

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria.Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why abbreviate in FN 57 but not 54?
• FN 58: source italicizes Numismatic News but not NumisMaster
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
• Given the abbreviation method you're using for states, "Ma." is ambiguous - could be Massachusetts or Maryland
• "Whitman Publishing, LLC" or "Whitman Publishing LLC"?
• How are you ordering the sources without authors?

Alphabetically by first significant word of the name of the newspaper/other publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• How are you dividing "Bibliography" and "Other sources"? It seems to mostly be books vs other, but you're got a report with the books and a book with the other...Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's modified now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I will work through these this evening. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

These things are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore

• "Hoover was concerned about the large numbers of designs used for commemorative coins in the 1920s, fearing that confusion would aid counterfeiters." — Perhaps change "fearing that" to "and feared that" to avoid noun+present participle construction?
• "The Depression had caused there to be little demand for coin in commerce..." — Methinks 'tis a bit clumsy; how about: "The Depression had diminished demand for coin in commerce..."?
• "The House of Representatives Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures issued a memorandum stating that the design of the existing Standing Liberty quarter had been found to be unsatisfactory, and that the new piece would not only be struck for 1932, it would permanently replace the older design." — I am a bit confused; does the use of a comma after "1932" create a comma splice?
• "No quarters were struck at any mint in 1933, due to the oversupply caused by the 1932 issue" — Shouldn't the "due to" be "owing to"? I think I've read somewhere that the former modifies conjugated forms of "to be" (indicating that it would be correct in this context), but since it's in the passive, I'm not sure.
• "These minting operations were rapidly depleting the Treasury's stock of silver." — Is the use of the past progressive correct in the sentence? IMHO, it would be more idiomatic with "These minting operations rapidly depleted the Treasury's stock of silver."

Eisfbnore ^talk 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've done all of these, though I modified matters in most cases, except the comma splice one. I think that one is OK as the final clause is not independent. Note the use of the word "only".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I forgot one point though: "Beginning in 1976, and continuing over the following twenty years, the design was tweaked a number of times" — Isn't the use of tweak a touch informal for an encyclopaedia? My Thesaurus suggests adjust, modify, alter, change, adapt and refine as substitutes. Eisfbnore ^talk 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I picked "modify" and recast it in the active voice. Thank you again. Do not hesitate to let me know of other glitches.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support I'm not that into numismatics, but I found the article—surprisingly—very interesting, and have no hesitations with giving it my full support. Other than that, I think there might be a comma splice in the sentence "Other commemoratives had been sold at a premium, the Washington half dollar would, for one year, be the normal Mint issue." but I might be in the wrong this time as well. Eisfbnore ^talk 08:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I try to write the coin articles both for the coin collecting reader and also for the general public at large. I think you are right; that should be a semicolon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: My detailed comments were given at the peer review, some months back. I've only a couple of minor issues to raise now:-

• I notice the presence of one or two intrusive redundancies, e.g. "in fact", "actually", which could probably be zapped.
• It would be useful to link the term "territories" as it occurs in the penultimate paragraph of the article, since this term will not be widely understood outside America. How about this: territories?

A worthy addition to a lengthy, high quality series. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise. The recommended changes have been made.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thurman Tucker

Nominator(s): Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those who are familiar with me may have seen Operation Big Bear in my signature, and may or may not know much of said project. Well, here's the first FAC for this project, and presuming I remain interested in the project, it should be the first of many.

Thurman Tucker was a baseball player in the 1940s and early 1950s, who made his mark in the mid-1940s. He developed a reputation as a great fielder, and a good enough hitter that he was okay to leave in the lineup. He usually split time with other players in the lineup, including when he was on the World Championship 1948 Indians (see OBB above). Once 1950 rolled around, he lost a step and was pretty much done as a player. He may be far from the biggest name on that World Series-winning team (I'll get to the more exciting ones soon enough), but he lives on as a result of that season. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Review by Wrestlinglover; Result:

Lead

• "In 701 career games, Tucker recorded a batting average of .255, and accumulated 24 triples, 9 home runs, and 179 runs batted in (RBI)." - Remove the second comma.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He was nicknamed "Joe E." Tucker because of his resemblance to comedian Joe E. Brown." - This piece of information is not featured in the article. His resemblance is, however, the nickname I did not see noted.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After his retirement, he became a major league scout and insurance agent. He died in 1993." - Merge them: "After his retirement, he became a major league scout and insurance agent before his death in 1993."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• As for the infobox, I've noticed some of the information noted is not elsewhere in the article outside the lead, such as his left-handed batting, right-handed pitching, and his overall career statistics.--WillC 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "Thurman Tucker was born and raised in Gordon, Texas." - Include his middle name and birthday, such as "Thurman Lowell Tucker was born on September 26, 1917, and raised in Gordon, Texas.".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "At high school, he was a three-sport athlete, playing baseball (where he was a second baseman), basketball, and track and field." - Switch "At high school" to "In high school" or "During high school".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After graduating in 1935, he played semi-professional baseball, and enrolled in a baseball school located in Hot Springs, Arkansas." - Remove the second comma--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1936, aged 18, Tucker signed as a professional with the Fayetteville Bears of the Arkansas-Missouri League, but left the team after only two weeks, without playing a game." - Change to "In 1936 at age 18, Tucker..."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor league career

• "After recovering from the injury, Tucker continued to progress through the minors, and spent the 1938 season with two separate clubs;" - Change to "After recovering from the injury, Tucker continued to progress through the minors, spending the 1938 season with two separate clubs;"--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "During his first few years in the minor leagues, one manager asked him to take up clowning due to his resemblance to Joe E. Brown; as someone who was on the serious side, Tucker was against the idea, and it was dropped." - I don't really see how this is notable to his life exactly. This is more like trivia to me. I feel the second part should be changed to "Tucker objected due to his serious nature and the idea was later dropped."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "At spring training for the 1942 season, Tucker competed with Dave Philley for the final outfield spot." - Switch to "Tucker competed against Dave Philley".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Change "White Sox management liked his defensive abilities, and as a result Tucker was on the major league roster on opening day, making his major league debut on April 14, 1942." to "White Sox management liked Tucker's defensive abilities, leading to them adding Tucker to their 1942 major league roster; Tucker made his major league debut on April 14, 1942."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicago White Sox

• "Only Wally Moses of the Chicago White Sox outfielders was assured of a place at the beginning of the 1943 season." - Reference?--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Owing to his achievements, Tucker was named to the All-Star roster for the only time in his career." - Sounds a bit odd, I suggest "Owing to his achievements, Tucker was added to the 1944 All-Star roster for the only time in his career."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After returning to regular play, Tucker platooned with Philley, and he finished the season with a .236 batting average in 89 games." - Wouldn't "platooned" be jargon?--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians

• "Tucker also participated in game six of the 1948 World Series, scoring a run in the sixth inning on a walk en route to a 4–3 win for the Indians." - Remove "also", its getting repetitive as the previous sentence has it as well.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Later life

• Good--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• All appear reliable in my view.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links

• Everything appears necessary and useful, however, there is a hidden category. Its Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter, which would mean one of the templates is acting up. I've had this type of issue with the wrestling portal recently.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

• Only one image is featured, I assume as there are no more available? The image has no alt text or a caption, which would be useful. The image appears to have the correct licensing.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually familiar with your Operation having checked it out before. You got a battle ahead of you, but I see the determination as I've got a few myself. Anyway, here are some comments. I've attempted to give a very in-depth review to help as much as I can. You've reviewed several articles I've written in the past, I thought I'd return the favor.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues fixed for the most part; did not add the middle name to early life since it doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to me. The Joe E. reference is slightly trivial, but does provide insight into his personality, which helps with the article. The Wally Moses ref is in the following sentence, I can repeat it for both if needed. Lastly, there is only one image available, and it took me a while to find even that. I could add in a free image of someone else (such as Philley or perhaps Hornsby) if it's desired. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: I peer reviewed this article and had another look before this nomination, doing some copy-editing both times. All my concerns were addressed and I think this is a good piece of work. I cannot comment on the quality of sourcing, but the article seems comprehensive to me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Quite a few issues in the writing and style for a modest-sized article, but they should be fixable without too much fuss.

• I see no need to link the White Sox twice in the lead. Same goes for the Indians.
• Also, World War II is such a well-known event that I doubt it needs the link.
• Chicago White Sox: To me, the first sentence of the section would read better as "Of the Chicago White Sox outfielders at the beginning of the 1943 season, only Wally Moses was assured of a place on the team."
• "causing his batting average to shrink from .345 to .327 and in the process losing his status as league leader." The "and in the process losing" doesn't work well with the rest of the sentence. Not sure how to fix it; would "causing a batting average drop from .345 to .327 that resulted in him losing his status as league leader."?
• "After his average fell to .320 after hitting once in 35 at bats." He hit in each of his at bats; he just wasn't always successful at it. How about "after recording one base hit in 35 at bats."?
• "His form recovered in the second half of the season, finishing the year...". The part after the comma doesn't go well with what comes before it. Try "and he finished the year...".
• Don't need two platoon links in three sentences. I know it's jargony, but that's a bit much.
• Cleveland Indians: The "also" in "and also ended the season with a perfect fielding percentage of 1.000" is redundant and should be removed to make the prose a shade better.
• "both attempted to make the Indians roster to secure their position on the team". Don't "to make the Indians roster" and "to secure their place on the team" really mean the same thing?
• Ref 40 doesn't verify that Tucker's move to the PCL ended his major league career, and I don't think that's fully accurate; he just never got called up again by the Indians or another team. Perhaps making it clear that the April 29 game was his last MLB game would solve this issue. Baseball-Reference includes the last appearances of players, so you wouldn't need another cite to insert that.
• Later life: The Oklahoma City Indians and Texas League links are both repeats from earlier in the body.
• At the end of the section's first paragraph, and start of the third, there are consecutive cites to the same reference. When this happens, it's usually okay to just have a reference for the last sentence that covers both. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Issues fixed. Kept the WWII link in since while it is very common, it's not a link you'd necessarily expect in a baseball article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All comments noted at this point have been addressed as of this writing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Queen Mary

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The last British battlecruiser completed before World War I began, this ship had only a brief career before she blew up during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. This article had a MilHist ACR last April and I've revised it slightly to meet the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class:
  • The para which begins "Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors" doesn't actually compare this ship's dimensions to those of the Lion class
    • The differences in dimensions were fairly trivial, but added up to a significant difference in displacement, which is given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Following complaints from the Fleet" - should 'Fleet' be capitalised?
    • That's how it's given in my source, but I can go either way since it's an implicit proper noun. Like the (US or Royal) Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What's a 'cruising stage'?
    • Lemme add a definition somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Was the ship always intended to be an 'orphan', or were others ships of her design planned but not built?
    • She was a singleton as the pattern by that time was to authorize one battlecruiser as part of the tranche of capital ships every year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you add some material explaining this? Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • More generally, details on the decision to build this ship and the selection of the design are needed - these are included in most other FA level articles on warships.
    • Lemme see, but I don't think that there's actually much out there as she was a slightly improved Lion so no major changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Added some additional details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command." - of this ship, or the squadron? (the entire section is about the squadron, so it's unclear)
    • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Queen Mary is not specifically mentioned in either the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' or 'Raid on Scarborough' sections. Can anything be said about the ship's role in these battles?
    • I don't think so as she was just conforming to Beatty's movements, but I'll check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Still need to check for anything specific in the raid, but I've checked every source I have access to, including Jellicoe's book on the Grand Fleet and a book on the battle, and no details are available on her activities during Heligoland Bight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (comment only) I know that it's in quite a few articles (many of which are FAs), but I find File:Scheer's illustration of I SG disposition 16 Dec. 1916 en.SVG really difficult to understand as some of the arrows depict distances between ships while other identical arrows show the direction ships were traveling in. The point in time at which these distances were relevant is also needed. I think that this image should be removed until it can be re-worked, but this won't affect my vote in this FAC given how many FAs its currently being used in. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But the measurements use hollow squares while ships use solid squares. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • ...I thought that one colour was for the Germans and the other the British. That this isn't the case is another flaw with the image, but as I said, it's not a deal breaker here. I'd strongly suggest re-working this image though. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gnangarra

General characteristics section;

• Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors... doesnt hold up 703ft compared to 700ft, beam of 80ft compared to beam of 88ft, draft of 32 4 compared to 32 5 two of the first three stats when compared are smaller. displacement is larger but height is again smaller 5.92 feet compared to 6. I think it would be better described as similar as the comparisons just dont hold up.
  • I had a typo for her beam, it's 89 feet, not 80. As I said to Nick-D above, those trivial differences added up a significantly greater displacement. Metacentric height is a measure of stability, not size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Armament v Fire control

• The armament gices the impressionthat asignificant change occurred with The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.(two sources) but when you read the fire control it says 'Queen Mary received her main battery director before the Battle of Jutland in 1916(third source) what happened its as if the change wasnt significant and barely notable. IMHO the fire control needs more detail about process before the change and what affect it had after the change.
• Fire control information looks like a copy/paste from Lion class battlecruiser yet there it has more detail about the system.
• see below for detailed thought, remove fire control section
  • Lemme see about this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Armour;

• opens The armour protection given to the Queen Mary was similar than that of the Lions. hmm similar to that maybe than is for where there are comparative differences where as similar is for less distinct difference, combine they just dont read well.
  • Typo of "than" changed to "to".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Heligoland Bight

• Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command the para starts in AUgust and continues through the battle, so where does the October date come from, why is it significant to the battle?
  • It's not, but otherwise it's a one-sentence paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Raid on Scarborough;

• Queen Mary was refitting in January and February 1915 and did not participate in the Battle of Dogger Bank.[24] looks a little lonely/lost I realise its putitng things in cronological order so maybe its a chance to address the fire control issues in a new section that covers the actual refit and what took place along with absence note from the battle of Dogger Bank.
  • Unfortunately, I do not know exactly when the ship actually received her fire-control directors. It may well have been this refit, but it likely wasn't the only refit that she received before Jutland. It's just the only one that I can document.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland;

• last paragraph maybe used to create an Aftermath type section rather than being tacked onto the end, at the moment the story feels like its just been left hanging.
  • Good idea, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Beside this the images are PD as the diagram no issues there, otherwise an Interesting read Gnangarra 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • I think that "Aftermath" should be its own top-level section, rather than part of "Service", since it deals with a much later time period and a wholly different context.
    • Good idea.
  • "She was refitting during the Battle of Dogger Bank in early 1915" in the lead makes it seem like she was refitted right there in the middle of a battle. The body text makes this clear, but what battle she missed is not important enough to be in the lead, just say she was refitted during early 1915.
    • Reworded, but the name of the battle was given.
  • "She was the last battlecruiser completed before the war" is given in the lead but never presented or sourced in the article body. Also not sure what the significance of this is in terms of being in the lead.
    • Sourced.
  • "and exploded shortly afterwards" in the lead indicates there was some lag, whereas the article body indicates the ship broke in two right away.
    • No time interval was specified in the main body since it's uncertain exactly how long it took.
  • Was C. I. Prowse still captain at the time of the sinking?
    • Yes.
  • I'd repeat the link for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 when it occurs again at the end of the article.
    • Why? There's a cite and link to the actual document there.
  • The 1,266 figure is stated twice close together in the article body. I think the second instance could just say "the lost officers and men". However, it would be good to include this figure in the lead.
    • Rewritten.
  • "Her wreck was discovered in 1991 and rests partly upside-down, on sand, 60 metres (197 ft) down." is given in the lead but these facts are never presented or sourced in the article body.
    • I'll see if I can find a cite for the depth.
  • The lead puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that this was a battlecruiser, but there's no analysis later of whether this 'battlecruiserness' was a factor in her blowing up so quickly.
    • None of my sources make any conclusion about the issue since the exact cause of her destruction is still unknown.
  • The article lacks any analysis of whether her design departures from the Lion class make her better or worse.
    • That would be OR since none of my sources make any such judgements about her.
  • The article needs some historical context about Beatty, battlecruisers, and Jutland. Not to re-hash the whole story but just to indicate that there is a story. Consider that if this article ends up on the main page, readers will come to it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There are links for all that stuff; the focus here is the ship. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure about using "Great Britain" as an author
  • That's how it's cited in Worldcat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Where is Greenwich? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that there's always one! Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is rather short and fails to summarise the article. It could do with another couple of paragraphs.
  • Lemme see what I can do, but I'm not going to try to summarize the technical details of the design as that would just be redundant.
• The lead image lacks alt text; in fact the alt text for all the images should be reviewed since I've now seen another couple of images lacking alt text, or with extremely short alt text. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt text is not a requirement at FAC.
    • I see it's been pulled since the last time I was at FAC. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• There seem to be a few terms that still need to be wikilinked, such as "deep load". "direct-drive steam turbines" should be linked to both Direct drive mechanism and Steam turbine. There are probably more terms that can use wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Added more lots more links. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A little more

• "Transmitting Station" (in Fire Control section) - does this need to be capitalised? Also should be wikilinked (or redlinked) to something - plotting room is the closest I could find but probably isn't appropriate... Simon Burchell (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've dropped in another dozen or so links, you might want to check them to make sure they're going to an appropriate destination. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 401

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination restarted. (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support—I was quite critical of this article the last time it was here, and it's come a long way since then. It received a fairly thorough A-Class Review and plenty of attention here prior to the restart.
  I've read through the prose, and I feel it substantially meets the criteria. (I hedge that statement only because we can always polish the prose in articles, and other editors may have different opinions on a piece of text, and both be right.) As for the other criteria, I believe that the article meets them as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Based on my comments earlier in the FAC, I feel this article meets all the criteria and is an interesting article on an important highway in Canada. Dough4872 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This article has been consistently progressing since mid 2010 and is ready to be featured. Content and media are of high quality and are properly sourced. The layout is well structured and organized. Simply put, the Ontario Highway 401 article is now one of the best road articles on Wikipedia and is worthy of Featured Article status. Haljackey (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Resolved comments by Nick-D moved to talk page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed. I still think that the material on the Highway of Heroes name is over-long, but this is a minor point, and doesn't detract much from this fine article. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I supported last time around, and I'm happy to do so again in the expectation that the relatively minor issues identified above will be easily fixable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note -- Previous pass of this FAC included an image check but I believe we still need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• My previous objection on the grounds that the article lacks coordinates for key features still stands (the addition of map links referencing a separate KML file does not address this). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And our replies that your objection is unactionable still stand. --Rschen7754 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • And still of no merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Object, also on the grounds of lack of coordinates. I'll not rehash the arguments again; I'm guessing most readers understand the two positions on this subject. The KML link to two map sources is very welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on both opposes above - What coordinates are missing? What are "key features", and do you have a reliable source? Also note "no consensus" for use or non-use of coordinates at the recent RfC, as the closing admin stated: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", exactly what is accomplished through the KML. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The KML matter has no bearing on this one; and the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC means that it's still down to editors to make decisions on a more local basis. I have an open mind as to which features are key; but it's implausible to suggest that none are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • So in other words it's original research, since you can't offer any reliable source that singles out features on this road as "key features"? Thanks, but moving along... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • How you leap from "open mind" to "original research" is a mystery I have neither the time nor inclination to resolve. And, please, use your edit summaries to summarise your edits, not make snide remarks which, as in this case, and as so often on others, are wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, and instead move aside to comment on how I arrived at original research (because you haven't presented a reliable source) or on my edit summaries (I'm perfectly happy with my snide remarks, thank you), then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", so you are incorrect in stating "the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC" (speaking of snide remarks). The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck This is my first time doing one of these, so please let me know if I did it wrong.

• 20, 27, 32, 39, 60, 67, 73 good.
• Hardcopy maps not checked; though there are no plagiarism concerns there.
• Source 4 - I think it's good. "the busiest highway in North America" seems to be used by more than one source, I don't think that's a particularly distinctive phrase.
• Source 6 - second cite - confused as to where you're getting the Santa Monica Freeway and the Houston references from. Third cite - "carrying 60 percent of vehicular trade between Canada and the US." versus "It carries 60 percent of all vehicular trade between Canada and the US."
• Source 8 - don't think "busiest truck route in the world" is particularly distinctive either.
• Source 14 - where is 2013 coming from? Third cite not supported. (My guess is that you got that info off the other pages in the site?)
• Source 50 - not seeing the info for the first or third cite, maybe I'm missing it.
• Source 79 - not sure where the "widening" part is coming from.

There's 177 citations so I'm about half done, but I'm running on very few hours of sleep and thus the spotchecking is getting more and more painful. --Rschen7754 03:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• A word of caution - source numbers can change of one is added, mid-way through the sequence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do this the same way, and when one gets changed, I usually re-reference it in my next post as the current number. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm just copying the format of several other spotchecks; look at some of the other current reviews for examples. --Rschen7754 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Floydian, do you plan to address these issues? --Rschen7754 20:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My bad, lost track of this among the pointless arguments. I've fixed everything up mentioned thus far; everything was already in the article but sometimes I've referenced the wrong thing. For ref 6, Shragge's online article mentions SMF, but I can't remember where Houston came from. It's not particularly important, so I removed it. I'm not sure how else to word that one particular sentence without making it grammatically incorrect or overly wordy. I backed up #14 for the 2013 date (the reference was for the routing). #50, the third is definitely there, but you are right about the first. I've switched that instance to the opening dates reference, which I use for the colour coded map. #79 I had to use my offline Shragge reference for (the newspaper reference just mentions that Highway 27 south of the 401 was part of the bypass, which other references earlier in the text had mentioned was a four-lane divided highway constructed in the 1950s. All fixed now though). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support This is a nice well written article that deserves FA status when the elephant in the room has been addressed. The Infobox has no provision for the addition of terminal, or median co-ordinates. You cannot have a geographical infobox that doesn't give you a location- that needs to be fixed. The infobox fails to mention which country we are discussing, and the location of Ontario within it, I am sure that is easily fixed. Not surprisingly for a North American article the terminology used is regionally specific, for instance the the article is about a road- but the word highway is used without explanation throughout.The article itself is totally lacking in coordinates- and while this could be said valid design decision the fact that this issue remains open precludes this lovely text from being considered for FA. It is worrying that a particularly acrimonious RfC, is cited as justification, for one extreme POV. This rather proves that the text is not jet ready for FA. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the correlation in your last point between using the outcome of an RfC that is directly relevant to this to justify not including something that I am not going to include (and that are NOT a requirement of a featured article. I can add the KML link into the infobox, but that is redundant when it appears directly above the infobox. There is absolutely no need to duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates. If it can be done without displaying the degrees, minutes and seconds in the infobox, cluttering it with numbers that appear in the link provided, then I may reconsider. Until then, additional piling on will not change the situation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, stay on focus. The task in hand is getting this brilliant piece of writing past the FAC. The problem is the level of proof required- being brilliant isn't enough. The team trying to get this accepted has to get everyone on board- and there is this big elephant in the room.is a sparce guideline to the requirements of a featured article. Item 1a- the most important one talks about brilliant prose. This text is some of the best I have seen. Item 1b- is the sticking point comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; as the text, and for me the infobox is totally lacking, or deliberately neglects a category of major facts and deliberately fails to place the subject in the context that is required by specialist editors- and required to set your SATNAV- and required in secondary school exam syllabuses the world over. As such the text will fail 1.b. The task is thus how to introduce sufficient coordinates in a form that doesn't damage the flow of the prose, so the text can be said to be comprehensive. As I have stated changes to the infobox could be beneficial and an easy way forward, and then I suggest that adding some tags to the tables may sweep up the rest of the problem. The next task 1.c is about referencing and I assume that is watertight. But now we come to 1.d neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; which I am convinced the group has rigorously attempted to do but does it look that way to a random outsider, or does it look as the editing is ruthlessly protective of a particular style of editor to which many have been excluded- you have to be seen to be conciliatory and embracing. Finally 1.(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Thankfully, other editors who have been commenting are too busy elsewhere to play tit-for-tat and to even start making simple edits to the substantive text- but as I intimated there has been a proxy edit war going on elsewhere. The RFC was vicious, and drawing it to outsiders attention is not wise. For FAC it matters not who won the RFC but that there was no conflict in the first place and that is not true. To progress this further it will be necessary to address 1 b, 1e and to a lesser extent 1d. I seriously suggest that the infobox is the place to start- as doing this correctly will open up every Ontario Road article to FAC, and I would seriously suggest that being acrimonious is detrimental to the task in hand here. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all those can be solved by methods other than adding the degrees, minutes, and seconds to the article, and I look forward to compromising in that respect. I will not add obtrusive strings of numbers though, as they serve no purpose in this context. It is the link to geohack that is desired, not DMS coordinates. If {{coord}} had a method to suppress the DMS coords in the article, I would be happy to add them to the endpoints and Major junctions in the infobox and to the junction list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree to hiding each of the junction numbers behind a link that says "junction"? Mileages behind a link that says "mileage"? I look forward to compromising in that respect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I can relate to the horror of templates with 8 or more | chars, so though I normally set the output format of the {{coord}} to dms- I always input in dec. I have mocked up on in a sandbox one possible way of coding a bare minimum infobox, with two start/end coordinates that I pulled in using a bookmarklet I have set up. As you can see it is in Degrees and deci-degrees. If the aim is to keep the numbers to a minimum and suggesting that for a 16 lane highway an accuracy of +- 700m should be appropriate we arrive at 2 dec places as shown in the source code. I have <-smalled-> down the text and added the missing word Canada, and bolded the Highway name at the same time. In time this should be hardcoded into the template to enforce consistency- but this is just a mock up. In the article its self I can see merit in hiding the coords behind a graphic, so they only appear on a mouse roll-over (I did it once in raw javascript- but have never tried in Wikipedia to achieve the same effect-technical advice needed here). Enough for tonight.--ClemRutter (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've used your infobox. This is reasonable enough and doesn't stick coordinates in stupid places or for rediculous random points along the length of the highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we "duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates"; since the KML does not explicitly identify the locations of key features. And, though it may surprise you, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want? The KML explicitly identifies the endpoints of the highway, and the course it follows. Without a source, I do not know what a "key feature" is on this road. Do you? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article is in such a state that its "principal contributor" [whatever that means] can't identify its key features, then perhaps we should abandon all attempts at FA until that situation is resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Principal contributor means that in a list of contributors, I have made the most edits... In fact, very close to as many edits as all other editor combined![6]

If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" (whatever that means) are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.". The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

so "Principal contributor" has no special meaning on Wikipedia, nor does it endow special privileges, thanks for clearing that up. "Key features" similarly has no special or technical meaning, just the dictionary definition; "significant features" or "important features" will do. You don't need to do anything; like I said above, you're not the only editor; nor is there any need for you to decide anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, important points. I don't know of any point on this highway that is any more important than any other point on this highway. Fortunately, wikipedia doesn't accept my subjective opinion. I am not going to do anything, but similarly, I am not going to allow others to add some arbitrary points that they have decided are "important" when they can't provide a single piece of verification for those "important" points. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As you have been told previously, maps will verify the location of such points. If you believe that to be inadequate, raise an RfC to prohibt them. Oh, wait... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No map I have ever read indicated the key features on Highway 401, so if you have one please share it so that I can use it as a source and add the coordinates your desire so! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking at map which shows Highway 401, but none of its important features, get a better map. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment this is inactionable. The reviewer refuses to elaborate on what things they feel need to be tagged. They refuse to provide a reliable source for "key features" ("Key features" is not a cartographic term). I have over three dozen maps of southern Ontario, various municipalities in southern Ontario, and historical maps of Ontario from every year between 1949 and 1990. I have official maps, I have commercial maps, I have tourist maps. In fact, I even have a book that describes the surroundings of every exit along the highway! None of these texts use the term "Key feature". None of the maps label any special points along the highway. The only Point of Interest (now there is an actual cartographic term!) on the entire highway is the Basketweave, which has a coordinate in its article. I cannot provide information that does not exist, and I cannot act on an ambiguous command. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As is so often the case, Floydian chooses to misrepresent my position, rather than to address it. I have never "refused to elaborate on what things need to be tagged"; though I have stated that I have an open mind on that matter; not presuming to be the font of all knowledge. It is Floydian who refuses to engage on the subject, preferring instead to pretend that my position is one of advocating original research; and to continue treating the generic phrase "key feature" as an exact technical term, despite having already been told that it is not. Many editors manage to include coordinates for features on other, comparable linear features, without the problems he claims to see. I am unsure of how to engage meaningfully with an editor who suggests that including coordinate data without making it readable to our readers (in which case it suddenly becomes possible to find, we must presume) is a "compromise". Fortunately, though, we do not need him to provide such data; merely to acknowledge that it would improve the article, allow it to meet FAC requirement 1b, and to cease his practice of refusing to allow other editors to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Again, coordinates are not required whatsoever in a featured article. Please review WP:WIAFA. --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's a fallacious approach, WP:WIAFA deals with all topics from minerals to colours to clouds to laws to hedgehogs to books to movies, of course is doesn't say in the guidelines explicitly that co-ordinates are required. However, I draw your attention to: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • And we have stated that coordinates are not the only way of presenting that information; it's done in the KML. Also, please read Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Coordinates, where both Karanacs and Ucucha (former and current FA delegates, respectively) have stated that the FA criteria should not be interpreted as you have done so above. --Rschen7754 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You know, that's just fine, but as I said below, a tiny map of some obscure place in Canada which presents me with no context whatsoever of what I'm about to read is hardly what I would expect from a featured article. Former and current FA delegates are welcome to their opinions just as I am mine. The infobox in the lead has no easily identifiable global context. This is English language Wikipedia, some of our readers may not recognise a very small map of a specific portion of a province of Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The KML maps the full course of the Road. It does not explicitly indicate the location of key features; it is not a substitute for the use of coordinate templates in the article, for such points (nor did the section of the re3cent RfC which introduced it claim that it was). Individual FA delegate's views carry exactly the same weight as mine, or any other individual editor's, and no more than that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
          • "it is not a substitute for the use of coordinate templates in the article" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment as a complete outsider who has merely commented on the content and not the rights and wrongs of KML files etc, I do find it odd that an infobox that opens an article about a geographical subject in an encyclopaedia lacks both global context and geographical detail. I'm not from Ontario, not from Canada, not from North America – from the infobox there's absolutely no geographical context for this road. I'm neither for nor against adding arbitrary waypoints (on one hand it would be useful to know the extents in the case of road like this, on the other hand, of course that couldn't be extended to roads such as ring roads) but it is a little strange (from my non-expert, naive perspective) that I can't tell where in the world this is easily, particularly in an article we are aiming to be one of our "finest examples". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the map in the infobox? --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I mentioned, I'm not from Ontario, Canada or North America, how would I recognise the context of that map in any way at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Either by clicking the link directly below the map that indicates it is a map of southern Ontario, or by reading the first sentence of the article: "King's Highway 401, also known by its official name as the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and colloquially as the four-oh-one,[3] is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean global geographical context. If I clicked "random article" and this came up, how would I know where in the world it was from its infobox? And what is the "link directly below the map"? I don't see it. I should be able to gain a contextual understanding from the graphics in the infobox, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not, and you would by reading more than the infobox, which is merely a summary. Picture books are for children; readers need to read to understand the topic they are reading about, and not rely solely upon pictures to tell them about the topic. The caption of the map is sufficient to provide the context: "Highway 401 (in red) within Southern Ontario", with that link taking you to an article that describes Southern Ontario. The map is appropriately scaled, as maps should be, to show the topic within ITS geographical context (and not within the context of the planet). If you want to know where Southern Ontario or Canada is, then read the articles on Southern Ontario or on Canada. I cannot provide basic geography lessons for people. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I see no point at all in a map in the infobox. It provides information, it would seem, to only a handful of people who understand the context of the map, i.e. people from Ontario or north-east (?) Canada. I suggest removing it altogether or providing more context to a global audience. It's nothing to do with "basic" geography lessons, that map is effectively useless to everyone bar those who know where it is. In which case they don't need it because they know where it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So what you want is a picture of the globe with a dot on it showing people - whom can't be bothered to make use of the interlinked encyclopedia we have built - where Ontario is in the world? Should I make the map a copy this map and stick a dot just north of Lake Ontario, since that will have more encyclopedic value than... well... absolutely nothing? I don't know what you expect, besides making a map for a person that probably wouldn't recognize the shape of North America either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a clickable link in the infobox to take me a decent mapping application would be perfect because that way, it wouldn't matter who was looking at this article, at least they'd have a way of getting some immediate context. And reduced hostility in your response would be even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. Please be aware the hostility is directed solely at Andy, and that anything else is spill-over because this is getting old, fast. I have added the kml links to the infobox (a clickable link that offers you the choice between two decent mapping applications), even though I feel it replicates links that are less than an inch above the infobox on my screen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So far today, you've admitted that you're "perfectly happy" making my snide remarks to me; and now being hostile towards me. I suggest you go and brush up on WP:5P, particularly WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you answer the questions I have asked instead of beating around the bush so that your reasoning has a leg to stand on. You're going to quite the extreme to avoid actually showing me a list of "key features". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered that request; I said that "I have an open mind as to which features are key". You responded, albeit with an inane comment, so I know you saw it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I had the same issue when I took a road article to FAC. The reviewer was satisfied when I added an inset map showing Iowa's location in the US. I created a mockup of what we could do here in a sandbox. It's a map of Canada with a box around the area of the current map? Also, I'm leaning towards darkening Canada a little bit in the inset map, so let me know if you agree. –Fredddie™ 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's close, but you'd still need idiot readers like me to be able to recognise the Eastern seaboard of North America.... (maybe look at some of the taxonomic articles which provide global context...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article says it is in Ontario, Canada, is it not safe to assume that a map of Canada suffices? I like the mockup, if that what's necessary (because editors either look at pictures or words, but never both), but I'd make the tan colour of Canada the same as the light green colour I use for land in the southern Ontario map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. It would be useful to see a globally contextual map. The current map is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Other quick issues beyond the map/co-ordinate issue, just in case:

• "Quebec City – Windsor Corridor" our article has that unspaced, would resolve it here or there if I were you.
• Is it "E.C. Row Expressway " or "E. C. Row Expressway " or "E C Row Expressway "? be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia if possible.
• Do you really think that "truck route" equates to "bypass"? Perhaps this is a US thing but I certainly don't equate the pair, although if I'm honest, I've never heard of a "truck route".
• Should auto industry really be "automobile industry"?
• Should changeable message be hyphenated (like the article)?
• Yorkdale Mall appears to be called Yorkdale Shopping Centre....
• Weird that West and East Don River both link to exactly the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
• I'm not sure I see the point of linking all the Durham roads if they lead to the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
• Is it St. Lawrence River or Saint Lawrence River? Consistency and avoid over linking is needed.
• " Windsor Salt mine" our link is " Windsor Salt Mine" in its entirety.
• What makes all those external links relevant? Some seem to be YouTube videos. What do they tell me? Are they relevant to a professional article?
• Also, FWIW, a quote from Floydian (above): "This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want?" doesn't encourage me to support this nomination at all, to the point of making an clear oppose. What a remarkable world we live in where we get to such aggression in an online project over a bunch of co-ordinates etc. I think, maybe, this kind of article has had it easy at FAC, many early supports, all of whom clearly miss basic problems, and sometimes fundamental questions need to be answered. Let's cut to the chase. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the 8 month history of these two and the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING and you will understand why there is such aggression. It's not just a case of it springing up out of nowhere: Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates. Several FAC's have been promoted regardless. I am not putting coordinates in this article, no, nope, not, never, nay, non. You may choose to support or oppose accordingly. An oppose based on FAC conduct is offtopic. I will address the other comments tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As a new reviewer to this kind of thing, I try to bring new perspectives. I don't need to familiarise myself with your arguments. I haven't brought any external issues here, I've just brought up issues from this and the previous discussion at FAC. I've tried hard to remain objective, and yes, I'll oppose because this miniature map of nowhere with no context for the remainder of the world is inadequate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A broader map would lack any EV that this map has. I have added links to google maps and bing maps directly below it so that those who are unfamiliar can zoom out and see what they are looking at. I cannot compromise precision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To address the other points, in order:

• This was a recent change in our dash conventions for article titles, fixed.
• Not even sure why that's linked
• Probably... fixed
• Yep, fixed
• That's probably the official name, but locally it's just Yorkdale Mall (signs on the highway also refer to it as such)
• They were once separate I think, but in either case both branches are notable for eventual separate articles
• Good point. Fixed
• Fixed
• Fixed
• These satisfy the requirements of WP:EL. The videos are essentially a virtual tour of some sections of the highway. They're standards on most Ontario freeway articles, including Don Valley Parkway

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox map. Let me know if this is what you were looking for. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING"; "Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates" Why are you telling lies, Floydian? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"I am not putting coordinates in this article" Again, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Coordinates are optional and shouldn't impede this Featured Article nomination. Can we move on, please? Haljackey (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're too busy to read the above debate, so allow me to summarise. FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Being an FA is optional, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

I believe that this article meets all Featured Article criteria and that's why I have given it my Support. Sure Featured Articles are 'optional', but there are requirements that have to be met. A coordinate system is not one of them. Drop it and move on to more constructive things. Thanks. Haljackey (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to read what I wrote: FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This is expanded upon by other editors as well as me, above. An instruction to "drop it" is not a compelling counter-argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're argument fails to challenge the criterion you quoted as the article already complies with everything stated in the criterion. While it's fine that we have a difference in opinion in the matter, I would prefer that this discussion not take place in this nomination page as it contributes to clutter. That is what I meant by 'dropping it'. Having said that, I will no longer discuss the matter on this page. Haljackey (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article does not adequately define the location of any of the individual features of the highway discussed, as giving those features' coordinates would. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have to say that the above argument for coordinates should be disregarded by the FA delegates. Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas, and adding them would clutter the article for little benefit. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that "Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas" is false; as is your claim of "little benefit". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note -- I was contacted by a reviewer here regarding the continuing discussion re. coordinates. Obviously this was hashed over a few months ago at WT:FAC and based on that and what I've observed of this and similar articles I can't see myself holding up this nom on the subject of coordinates -- a couple of which the nominator appears to have just added to the infobox anyway, despite initial reluctance. Since the spotcheck I requested earlier has been done (tks Rschen) I just have a few more checks of my own to make, which may give ClemRutter and other reviewers a chance to respond to that recent change. In any case, I think the process has gone on long enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your view; but where do you see consensus to proceed without coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although WP:FORUMSHOPPING doesn't directly answer the question here, because this isn't a "noticeboard" and we're not asking multiple admins, I think the general question is relevant, that is, whether it helps or hurts FAC when people use this forum as a do-over for arguments that have already been won, lost or drawn elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. Which argument has been "won, lost or drawn"? Come to think of it, which Wikipedia policy allows for an argument to be "won, lost or drawn"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All things must come to an end. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Capcom Five

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria. It was promoted to GA and I am prepared to address any concerns about the gap between GA and FA. With this article, I tried to place the Capcom Five in its proper historical context—part of the ongoing relationship between Nintendo and Capcom. Hope you like it! Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't read through the article yet, but repeated wikilinks appear to be an issue at first glance. I find this script quite helpful in fixing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• More comments: The article looks pretty well written to me, though I don't have quite as sharp an eye for 1a issues as some here do.
• Lead
• "The Capcom Five case, particularly the loss of GameCube exclusivity for Resident Evil 4, was said to have soured Nintendo–Capcom relations for years to come." Perhaps note who said this, i.e. commentators, analysts...
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Background
• "...with Mega Man being one of the NES' most prominent franchises." Might want to try to avoid the WP:PLUSING construction here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Because of increased manufacturing costs" Should this sentence start with "Due to" or am I mistaken?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This third party abandonment" Should this be hyphenated?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Resident Evil series creator Shinji Mikami would supervise all five games, which would be developed in-house by Capcom's Production Studio 4." Just as a matter of preference, think about rephrasing to avoid the "would... would" here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Release and reception
• For "the first of the five to be released in Japan on March 27, 2003" & "the second game released on June 26, 2003" you might want to clarify a bit so it doesn't sound like multiple games were released on each date.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In order to..." You could tighten this to just "To..."
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "achieving their goals of" Who does "their" refer to here?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This PlayStation 2 version ultimately sold 46,000 copies" I suggest tightening this by removing "PlayStation 2" and "ultimately"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After failing to appear at E3 that year, however," I suggest moving "however" to an earlier part of the sentence.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "premiered on January 11, 2005, in North America," I think there might be one comma too many here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "with the team creating and discarding" Again, maybe try to avoid the WP:PLUSING here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The game restricts the player's movement to specific branching paths through the environment and can only attack while stationary in first-person view." Might want to clarify who "can" refers to here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Are you linking to the right Deconstruction here?
  • I think so. I tried to clarify the referent a bit. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, that's all for now, I haven't read the Legacy section yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Legacy
• I suggest removing "one by one", I think it's already clear.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "These ports were generally inferior in quality, with many reviewers noting slowdown issues and lower resolution graphics." I'd suggest breaking this up with a semicolon.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "only four games were released and only one would remain" I'd prefer to avoid the "only... only" here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This lone GameCube exclusive was P.N.03 and not Resident Evil 4 as Capcom had repeatedly emphasized in press releases." I'm not sure, but maybe add in a comma here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Resident Evil 4 was a particularly notable example" Maybe just "notable"?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "To facilitate Viewtiful Joe 2's development, Capcom spun out Clover Studio, formed from members of "Team Viewtiful", as a semi-autonomous production studio with a focus on developing new intellectual properties (IPs)." Might want to try to cut down on punctuation here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Despite being a critical success" I suggest "Although it was..."
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Despite being a critical success, it failed to live up to Capcom's sales expectations, with Clover's next project God Hand doing even worse." I'd suggest a new sentence for God Hand.
  • I replaced it with a semicolon. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Nintendo opted not to include a character from Capcom in Super Smash Bros. Brawl as a direct result of Capcom's breaking of exclusivity, despite featuring characters from rival third parties Konami and Sega." Is there a good way to tighten this sentence up a bit?
  • I broke it up into two. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The Wii had mostly relied on first-party titles to move systems until 2009 when in-house development could not keep up with demand for new material, causing sales to drop and prompting a shift toward more aggressive courting of third party." I suggest adding a comma here.
  • I broke it up into two. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, finished a read-through. Interesting article and I'm leaning to support. I'll try to revisit it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, back again with a few more comments:
• "Resident Evil 4 was the runaway success of the five, though its GameCube sales were undercut by the announcement of a Sony PlayStation 2 port to be released later that year." Might want to state the year here.
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The series also represents another episode in Nintendo's ongoing quest for third-party developer support on a home console." I'm curious about the use of "ongoing" here, do you mean it's still going on now? Or was ongoing at the time of the Capcom 5?
  • Both. I changed it to "perennial"; does that help? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Also, you might want to put a bit more summary of the Background section in the lead. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I added another sentence. How does it read now? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Comment: The article looks in good shape and I'm leaning towards supporting it (though I would say that, I reviewed it at GAN). I've tackled most of the overlinking thanks to Ucucha's script; I've left the links to the individual games in their relevant headings there for the time being but I'm now thinking that perhaps unlinking them there and using {{Main}} to provide the same navigational function would be a better approach. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the help. I feel that adding Main links might disrupt the flow more than it needs to (it's already suboptimal to have the 3rd level headings for each game). Do you notice any prose issues? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've kept an eye on the changes being made here, and I'm more than willing to support now. Nice work, and I'd love to see this as the head of a featured topic some time in the future. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! Axem Titanium (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• "to reach a wider audience and maximize profitability" - source?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Check for typos in references (ex. FN 7) and minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Those doubled periods are because passing in "Foo Inc." into the publisher parameter of cite web doesn't remove the excess period. I just removed the Incs. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
  • Nintendojo. Destructoid is a "situational source" according to WP:VG/S; the Destructoid article is by Jim Sterling, who also works for IGN UK (he also authored Fn 79). Looking into others... Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry I've been absent this week. Two presentations, whew! Anyway, I replaced the NerdMentality ref with one from VG247, which is approved by WP:VG/S. I also replaced Pietriots with Edge magazine. I removed Brainy Gamer, Infendo, and N-Europe. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• This link returns an error message - check for and fix broken links
  • Argh. The archive link used to work! Commented out. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using publisher or homepage
  • Not sure what you mean here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 24, 46: page(s)?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 37: too many IGNs
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Check for wikilinking consistency
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• FN 44: issue?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaws (film)

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) DocKino (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Martin Brody, my ship was sunken by an adversary willing to chew on me, and I'm taking shots at it. Lame jokes aside, I had already rewritten this Former Featured Article hoping to return its bronze star, and then during the last FAC User:DocKino joined and did a much-welcome copyedit. Now that my two weeks of waiting are done, I just want to see if I'm gonna need a bigger boat. igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources comment: I think the main sources/citation issues were cleared at the previous FAC, but I notice one small point: there is duplication and/or overlapping in the page ranges of a number of the McBride citations, and for consistency these should be combined. Note, for example, cites 23, 24 and 30; cites 47 and 48; cites 84 and 117; cites 124 and 187. There may be other instances, although this does not seem to be a general problem. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

These citations are proper as stands. A citation of, for instance, pages 236–237 (cite 24) is not the same as a citation of page 237 (cite 23), nor should it be altered to appear the same. There is neither a "problem" nor an apparent correction to be made in this regard. DocKino (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. To me, the commonsense understanding is that "236–37" includes "237", and the same principle applies to the others I have mentioned. You have freely used combined references elsewhere in the article;, so what is so different about these? Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If something is mentioned only on one page in the range, why is it necessary to cite the full page range? I see no problem with either approach, and citing individual pages when applicable alongside ranges containing those individual pages is perfectly fine. Page N might contain the entirety of a quotation being used, whereas pages N–P contain a train of thought being summarised. Why cite the full range for something only contained on one of its pages, then? For the specific example being given, pp. 236–237 does contain p. 237, but a reader wishing to verify this with a book in hand shouldn't be directed to both pages when only one is used. GRAPPLE X 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Grapple X is correct. This is precisely the logic employed in the referencing in almost every one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of high-quality book sources on which we rely. Brian, I appreciate the detailed attention you brought to this point, but you are simply wrong here. Like virtually all other high-quality reference works, we properly cite the page or pages that are relevant and none other. DocKino (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is of course a very minor issue in the context of the article, and I apologise for labouring it. However, I don't accept that I am "wrong"; I do accept the reasoning behind the strategy that has been employed here, provided it is maintained consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe either approach is right or wrong, so long as it's consistent. I generally tend to use the style seen here myself, unless the article's references list has grown quite long, in which case I'll fold individual pages in with their parent ranges to clean things up a little. It's mostly down to personal choice, I believe. GRAPPLE X 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, if I may. I'm new to FAC, so delegates may wish to disregard this, but I personally can see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured acticle. It is top-class. --Lobo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support, with comments: I'll try and add to it as I go through, but just niggling things:

• Should really add some non-breaking spaces per WP:NBSP for figures like budget and such. I've done a few myself.
• "prompting effects divers to search for the lost shark, scaring a few in the process" --> Scaring the divers, presumably, after they happened on a shark in the seaweed. Could this be made a little more clear?

• I've reworded the passage, trimming the bit about the effects divers, which was a bit of a diversion there. DocKino (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

--I'll continue adding comments as I go through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The choice of word "watershed" in the second sentence seems unfortunate because of the clash with watershed (television). (Full disclosure: I had to look up what "watershed" meant, so I googled "watershed film" and ended up at watershed (television).) 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's being used with the third definition listed at wikt:watershed, though perhaps "watershed moment" would work better than "watershed film". For what it's worth, this meaning is what I tend to think of when using the term, though as a simple definition and not a concept, it doesn't have an article here to link to. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "watershed moment" seems better. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

While "watershed moment" does seem better, "the prototypical summer blockbuster" all by itself after that comma seems fragmented and peculiar, as if we're saying the "moment" is the blockbuster rather than the film...does this make sense to anyone? Maybe, "and is considered the prototypical summer blockbuster"? Or is that too complicated? Blake Burba (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How would "It is regarded as a watershed moment in motion picture history, becoming the prototypical summer blockbuster" read? GRAPPLE X 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads better, sure. Blake Burba (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to that, then. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More comments on the lead 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Taken in isolation, the words "professional shark hunter to hunt the shark" sound redundant.
• "Jaws was generally well received by critics, and it became the highest-grossing film in history to that point." -> When you write "to that point", what point is it? Probably clearer to write "at the time".
• "simple, "high-concept" premises" -> I find the comma after 'simple' to be unfortunate. Breaks the rhythm.
• "released in the summer at hundreds (now thousands) of theaters and supported by heavy advertising" -> The construction of the sentence could be revisited. It is difficult to tell 'released' refers to. Is it "premises", "business model"? Something is wrong here.
• Going back to when the article was first featured, the lead mentioned the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. I quick search revealed no mention of this event. This seems like a major hole in the article.
  • As mentioned in that old version, the book was inspired by the attacks. So, mentioning that is needed in Jaws (novel) (where it is done so), but not here. Done the rest. igordebraga ≠ 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Box office

Some of this information is erroneous; it didn't finish its original theatrical run with $129 million—this was the gross rental as opposed to the gross revenue. Jaws actually took something like $200 million on its original theatrical run, equating to about $115 million gross rental: [7]. Gross rental is the historic measuring system which is no longer in use, but many modern sources confuse it with revenue. Also the claim that it was the first $100 million grosser is incorrect. In fact, it was the third one after The Sound of Music and The Godfather (and Gone with the Wind via reissues): [8]. Again, this is most likely due to the confusion over gross rental and gross revenue, since with its $115 million gross rental it beat The Godfather ($81.5 million) and Gone with the Wind ($77 million): [9] (although all of these films made $100+ million in revenue). I would have gone ahead and corrected this, but it is under review and the problem is there are sources corroborating the incorrect claims, based on the misinterpretation of gross rental, so I thought I'd bring it here first. I notice this issue has been addressed in a previous review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jaws (film)/archive2) but wasn't acted upon. I'm happy to fix this for you (we also have international figures at List of highest-grossing films too which can be incorporated), so if no-one opposes my suggestions or wants to do it themselves I'll sort it out tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, when I researched for more BO data (after all it had at least 2 reissues) the word "rentals" came up frequently. Either I'll fix them, or you're welcome to do so, Betty. igordebraga ≠ 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've sorted it. Obviously it would be much better if we had the gross figures, but at least it's clear now. I also took the liberty of removing the claim about its 5 weeks at number 1, because BOM only shows five weeks and I suspect it spent much longer in pole position (in its 6th week it was actually up from its 3rd and 4th week takes) so we are probably doing it a disservice by saying it spent 5 weeks at number 1; that would be good by today's standards, but back then a film was only starting to get going by its third or fourth week. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, Betty. And I fully concur with your removing the claim about the 5 weeks at number 1. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay; I'm semi-retired you know. :-) Some comments (Steve ^T • C):

• Despite (or perhaps because of) its status as the prototypical summer blockbuster, Jaws is a film that has been analysed, scrutinised and pored over by film historians and scholars in ways that must make some of the most high-brow art films envious. It's a little surprising, then, to see a relatively slight themes and analysis section, one that seems to be a somewhat random dip into the waters instead of a comprehensive immersion, when compared to some of our other film FAs. Can either of the nominators confirm that this list of potential sources has been properly mined for useful commentary? From the snippets I've read, there do appear to be several promising depths left unexplored.
• Similarly, the list contains several entries from production-related publications that have seldom left me wanting (though I understand on this point that perhaps the various books you've used have covered what there is to know).
• From the title alone, "'Jaws' played to 80 million on ABC" from The New York Times seems like it might give up something useful about that first TV broadcast beyond the headline.
• The film's international release strategy and box office performance are limited to one statement each; there are several sources, most notably Variety, that will be able to provide a more comprehensive breakdown, especially of the film's excellent, record-breaking performances outside North America. Such detail is not uncommon in film FAs, and it is possible to craft this in ways that it doesn't seem like an uninteresting info-dump. Regardless, to be truly encyclopaedic, the article may have to find room for it.
• Returning to the point I made during the first FAC, it still seems odd to say that "the film received mostly positive reviews upon release" when McBride (pp. 255–256) states outright that was not the case. I understand that the AFI link you've chosen to use presents a different view, and I don't deny the site's reliability, but where two seemingly-reliable sources conflict, I'm not sure we should just eliminate or ignore one of them—the implication being that you deem McBride unreliable, yet not for the 22 other occasions you've used him. Note, I'm not taking about the mix of reviews you've chosen to illustrate the section (which seems to be what you thought I was saying during the first FAC), but the statement of the film's critical regard. It may help to bolster the claim if you can find sources from closer to the film's release rather than relying on retrospective commentary.

• As I mentioned above, positive ones (note that all of those quotes are from reviews of the period!) are more frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igordebraga (talk • contribs)

• That's fine for what it is—another source that says the film received positive reviews, but a few minutes on Google finds plenty of others that go with the "mixed" line or generally favourable. And the collection of glowing quotes doesn't mean anything on its own, as it's possible to cherry-pick positive or negative reviews of any film to present a desirable narrative. Enough quotes could probably be gathered for even the most reviled of films to present it in a positive light. I'm not saying that's what the author of the linked article has done, but the approach does leave us little better off. Steve ^T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think it's worth considering a move for the "Inspiration and themes section"? Its current placement doesn't flow particularly well with the structure of the rest of the article, and feels as if it was chosen at random. Would you be opposed to moving the section to appear just after the plot? There, it may benefit from the context provided by being closer to the events in the film it is dissecting. This method has worked well in other film FAs (e.g. Fight Club, American Beauty).
• Although the plot section clocks in at only a little over the recommended 400–700 word count, it does feel a tad overlong, and I did zone out a couple of times when trying to read through it. The plot section is intended to complement the wider coverage that follows about the production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. However, you should be wary of including too much fine detail, unless directly referenced later in the article; the broad strokes will usually suffice. The plot section is the first that your readers will encounter, and will turn them off the rest of the article if it's difficult to get through.

• I've cut out some relatively extraneous details, paring it down by 70 words. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• In looking for some decent commentary from the period on the critical consensus, I happened across this article, which presents a slightly different version of the story told towards the end of the filming section, a story that although essentially the same, seems to have had its edges rounded with time.
• The BAFTA and LA United Film Fest links appear to be dead.

That's all for now. I look forward to reading your responses/rebuttals. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with the suggestion to tighten the plot and to relocate "Themes and Inspirations" to follow on from the plot section. Obviously the themes follow on naturally from the narrative, so the plot provides a context for any analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved, even though I disagree (unlike the two examples above, Jaws has a straightforward plot without much symbolism). Expanded a bit on foreign performance, too. igordebraga ≠ 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree, don't do it and don't worry about it. No-one is going to oppose over section placement. It was just a suggestion. Steve ^T • C 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the additions regarding the international performance, specifically those cited to Variety, the impression I get is that you haven't been able to access these; each statement that has been added could have come from the article headline. Are you sure that's all there is? Steve ^T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for how extensively Igor has researched this, but Variety didn't track international box office in the 70s; it may have reported on it from time to time when films broke records, but it wasn't like today where you get weekly updates. I would imagine the best sources would be local trade magazines and newspapers, but those are most likely to be in a foreign language. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Older nominations

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... "I think it meets FAC criteria". I've said this so many times! lol. I'm not a religious person but I pray to God that it passes this time. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All my previous concerns about prose and sourcing have been addressed. Good job. Orane (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I request clarification on a couple awkward expressions in the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section. It states, "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and BSDM fetishes, including the various sexual fantasies and turn-ons of its protagonist... Rihanna stated that although she acts in a non-conservative manner and implies that she is "bad", this is not the case in the bedroom, confirming that she is "good" at performing sex.[9] After singing these lines, Rihanna confesses her love for chains and whips, chanting."

It goes from talking about a protagonist to taking about Rihanna herself. If you're still discussing the lyrics, you need to be consistent in differentiating between the protagonist/narrator and the actual artist. I'm thinking that it's the protagonist who says that she is good at sex, and not Rihanna herself (at least in the context of the lyrical interpretation). Am I being clear? Orane (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have changed to protagonist. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images

• The Britney Spears image caption should not have end punctuation as it's not a sentence.

  Removed Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 90 needs to be consistent with other magazine references.

  Fixed Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Also, languages do not have to be linked and avoid repeating publishers (e.g. "IRMA. IRMA", there may be more).

  What do you mean by linked languages? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  FN 130 - "Greek" is linked. Does not have to be. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• PDF refs should specify "format=" as a PDF, FN 124 has a typo.

  Added format=. And where is the typo?

  Sorry, it was 132 and 133. After the date, there's a pipe. Missed format for 134. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• MTV.de can be MTV Germany, just saying.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Do Billboard refs have the publisher parenthesized or not? Be consistent.

  Yes they do. They are all the same now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 5 needs single quotation marks for "Bad Ass" because they are inside the reference title, which is surrounded by double quotes.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 10 publisher needs to be linked.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Publisher for FN 42 can be the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• FN 86 is RadarOnline, one word.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Works and publishers for FN 139 do not have to be linked.

  Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Everything else looks good. However, the last few references were where I found a lot of issues, so double check that area. I may update with more concerns. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• The 'work' for Ref 16 should be BBC Online, BBC therefore becomes the 'publisher'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 1a, prose. I'm finding it hard to read through the first paragraph of the lead, which isn't all too positive of an indication of what is yet to come in the article. Several examples:

• "with production helmed by" is a rather ungainly construction. What's wrong with "produced by"?
• "It was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth United States single, and on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single." The way the regional adjectives are used here makes the sentence needlessly difficult to digest.
• "Inspired by channelling Rihanna," What does this even mean?

  She was channelling Rihanna when writing the song. She was inspired by Rihanna. I don't know how else to put it simply. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• What does channelling mean in this context? I'm unfamiliar with it being used this way. Auree ★ 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the lyrics based on the hook which she conceived." Clause should be restrictive here

   ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  He means that you should change "which" to "that". Orane (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I killed two birds with one stone by merging the sentence it occurs in with the preceding one--gets rid of some redundancy and the clause, so struck. Auree ★ 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism and bondage and fetishes." Is not bondage a fetish? Also, no need to wikilink common terms like "sex".

  Unlinked sex. Bondage is not a fetish; bondage is a type of restraint and sexual activity. A sexual fetish is when one is aroused by body parts or a specific object. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Alright, although it should read "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes" in that case. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The article is written in American English; "whilst" is not American spelling.

  Changed to "while". Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics, who criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, whilst others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." The usage of "who" here implies that all of the critics (the ones that gave mixed reviews) criticized the lyrics (negatively), and it doesn't flow well with the contradiction in the third clause. Suggest rewording to ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics; some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." or something along those lines.

  Re-worded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Thanks for your changes. Two more things:

• Although I personally don't see much need to wikilink the term, "fetishes" should be linked upon first occurrence in the lead.
• "The video initiated a lawsuit" I'm not sure videos initiate lawsuits; people or organizations do. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm finding lots of issues in the lead alone, so I feel inclined to oppose at this time. Auree ★ 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this comes down to your own personal preference of what you like and dislike. The lead follows the same style that recently pointed FAs have. Plus, it has been copyedited by people with FA experience. I can't keep on changing the lead to please just one person. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Calvin, this nomination would have a better chance of promotion if you engaged with reviewers, rather than dismissing them. Correct grammar is not a question of personal preference. For example, Hylian Auree is correct about the need for a restrictive clause – all you have to do is to agree on changing "which" to "that". And, "whilst" is archaic even in British English. FAC is not a vote and one unaddressed oppose can be enough to prevent promotion. Also, note that the reviewer has successful FA experience too! Graham Colm (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not basing this on personal whim (aside from the first two concerns, perhaps, which I have struck now); I'm basing this on FA criterion 1a: "It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." My concerns are heightened by the fact that the lead should represent the article at its best; I am, as everyone else here, a voluntary reviewer with an opinion of my own, and as it stands I find parts of the lead to be rather ponderous. Again, this is just my opinion, and other reviewers may agree or disagree. Auree ★ 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I mean, people read things differently. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Calvin, I think you should just implement Auree's changes. To tell the truth, my support is based on a previous version of this article. At the last FA, the introduction was not like this ("on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single" etc). So, just go ahead with the changes, and invite the reviewer to read the full article, which, in my opinion, is markedly better than the prose in the intro. Orane (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, Orane, I have no problem with reading through the rest. It just struck me as unusual to find so many prose errors in the lead. Auree ★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've done the last thing now. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read till the Remixes and release section, and I must say that Orane was right in what he said. The sections only need a light copy-edit as far as I can tell, which I will make soon. One thing that struck me as odd is the repetition of the years in dates throughout the Remixes and release section. I would only keep the first ones in each paragraph (January 17, 2011, and January 23, 2011). Auree ★ 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the repetition of "2011" in every date is necessary, as there's no other year mentioned in the section (e.g. "April 11, 2011" could just be "April 11"). Auree ★ 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, Auree. Also, I just trimmed and rearranged the first paragraph of the intro just a little bit. Will do another light copy-edit of the entire article soon. Thanks also for your part in copyediting it. Orane (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say that your changes make a world of difference. The first paragraph of the lead is now engaging and introductory, which is how it is supposed to be. I will strike my oppose but will refrain from supporting for now. I'll try to read the rest of the article by tomorrow. Auree ★ 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: "S&M" became Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart, and Spears' fifth. -> "Spears'" should be "Spears's". Till I Go Home (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  There isn't an accepted rule that governs the possessive of singular nouns that end in s. It depends on how the word is pronounced; do we want to hear "Spears" or "Spearseez"? I prefer the former based on euphony. Graham Colm (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, just checked other FAs and a second 's' is not imposed. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, and see here about euphony [10]. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jivesh

Prose that seem awkward

• • An uptempo dance-pop and eurodance song that samples the synthesizer line from Depeche Mode's 1984 hit "Master and Servant", the song's instrumentation comprises synthesizers, bass beats, a keyboard and guitars.
  • American singer and songwriter Ester Dean received additional writing credits.

• Not done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)", which was produced by Stargate. - I think you can let the reader know that both songs were produced by Stargate? Did the critics mention this while comparing both songs? If no remove , which was produced by Stargate
  • Rihanna's vocal range spans one octave from B3 to B4 on the song - You can let readers know that those two are musical notes.
  • Dean, who served as co-writer, also provided backing vocals. - What makes that a necessary mention for the second time?
  • was criticized by Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine as a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." - What is this piece of criticism doing in composition?
  • the singer ... the song's protagonist - make a choice, I think it is necessary. Anyway, I don't think Rihanna ios playing a protagonist here because she overtly talked about her (dirty) fantasies to a magazine.
  • An official remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on January 17, 2011. - Did Rihanna confirm it was official? Or her label? Released? Where? I don't think it was available for paid download.
  • contemporary hit radio and rhythmic radio station - Will you use station for all or not use it at all?
  • Extended play - should be small "e"

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Jake Conway of Q wrote that its lyrics showed that "Rihanna proves why she remains one of the most provocative artists in pop music," and "turns the tables on abusive ex-lover Chris Brown."
  • Nick Levine of Digital Spy gave the song four out of five stars - Care to mention it is in fact a rating
  • Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine gave a mixed review, noting that it is a "catchy" song, but does not make an impression or provide memorability, writing that the hook "Na, na, na, c'mon" is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." Sullivan continued to write that the lyrics were purposely written to shock and offend, but noted "In all honesty, these days I'd be more shocked if her next single WASN'T [sic] about her sexual desires." - Allow me to say that this is very verbose prose and it is very bad when read aloud.
  • Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "Dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities". - I think it should be a small "[d]..."
  • James Skinner of BBC Music wrote that "S&M" lacked the appeal Rated R's "chart-friendly moments" had. Skinner criticized the use of overtly suggestive lyrics that he said were not synonymous with the flirtatious appeal that Rihanna was trying to create. With regard to Rihanna's vocals, Skinner described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" or convincing sound. - Here you said too much in per unit line and you are again using a very verbose prose.
  • USA Today's Steve Jones noted that Rihanna "never retreats from that sexually aggressive tone as she shakes off the dark cloud of domestic violence that veiled 2009's Rated R", and added that "Loud's pulsating opener, S&M, makes it clear from the jump where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'."[13] - Won't this fit better next to Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine, and Thomas Conner of the Chicago Sun Times...
    • Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My general comment on critical reception is that the prose is overly verbose at times and it could have been organized better. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • denoting sales of over 15,000 copies - certifications are based on shipments
    • You know now that different countries are based on sales or shipments. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
  • The song has since been certified gold in Belgium, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies,[54] Denmark,[55] and Sweden,[56] and platinum in Switzerland, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies.[57 - The shipments for the others are the same?
  • was officially released as a single - remove officially
  • The song was number one on March 13, 2011, for five non-consecutive weeks - What does this sentence even mean? :S
  • denoting shipments of over 280,000 copies of the single - shipment should be used (singular) + of the single is repetitive next to copies. No need to say that.
  • In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, "S&M" sold 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100 - This sentence is very confusing. Make it clear that downloads came both form the album version and the remix.
  • "S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one song on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, and made Rihanna the artist with the most number one songs in the chart's nineteen-year history
  • denoting shipments of over two million copies - I hope you know what has to be corrected
  • "S&M" ranked at number 15 on Billboard magazine's best-selling top 50 Pop Songs[67] and number two on the top 50 best-selling Dance/Clubs Songs of 2011. - WP:OR... in the US, year-end charts are not sole based on sales. So, you should not write "best-selling"
    • Not OR. There is a source there.

• It is still OR. I just told you those two charts (in fact any year-end chart in the US) are not based on sales only. So don't write best-selling. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressed all. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The music video for "S&M" was filmed in Los Angeles during the weekend of January 15, 2011.[70][71] It was directed by Melina Matsoukas, the director of the music videos for "Hard", "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101". - Can easily be one sentence if you remove all the unnecessary details.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

**according to gossip-blogger Perez Hilton who was in the video. - Did I really see Perez Hilton? If yes, everything coming from it has got to go.

• • • What do you mean? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Perez Hilton is not even allowed in GAs. I know the source is MTV News but it remains the blogger's analysis. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I removed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Rihanna's love of pop art influenced the video - Not sure about this phrasing, especially be FA standards.
  • The music video was premiered on VEVO on February 1, 2011. - Remove was
  • I see over-linking of Perez Hilton.
    • Address all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

General comment: The synopsis is pretty interesting. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The Huffington Post wrote - A magazine does not write, a journalist/critic writes
  • OK! magazine - Why OK! magazine when you never said Billboard magazine? Be consistent
  • Same for New York magazine
  • I see over-linking of Billboard
    • It's only linked once in the entire body. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
    • Only linked once in this section.

• It's linked twice; in Background and conception, then in Reception and ban. It's obvious I won't write something that is not true. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unlinked. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • When I go out to make something, I kind of go out with the intention to get it banned – [well] not to get it banned, I always want my stuff played – but to make something provocative ... so when you do something that's provocative, that's usually a repercussion. It's gonna be talked about or banned or slandered in some way. But it's making an effect and people are having a dialogue about it, so, to me, that's successful - So this is supposed to be a block-quote? However, my eyes don't see it as a block-quote. Either you move those pictures (which, in my opinion, are unneeded) or you paraphrase the quote as the reception is already made of quotes and quotes.
  • at the 2011 BRIT Awards on February 15, 2011

•  ?

• 2011 and 2011 again? It's very bad. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removed one of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote its release as a single' - since when do we promote the release of a song? Did you mean simply "Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote it"?
    • No, I mean single. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Then please make the correction I asked for. If you did not understand, read what I wrote one more time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Spears' outfit was black, and she wore a mask and rabbit ears, and both singers wore chained handcuffs.
    •  ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• and ... and ...and - It's too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Rihanna opened the performance seated and provocatively opened her legs, and simulated whipping sounds were used throughout the song.
    •  ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• and ... and ...and - It's too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • Rihanna performed "S&M" on May 27, 2011, on NBC's Today show's "Summer Concert Series", along with "Only Girl (In the World)", "What's My Name?" and "California King Bed", where she gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears.
    •  ?. Too long? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Is "California King Bed" a location? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rwworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • I see over-linking to BDSM
    • How? It's only linked once in the entire article. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• It has been linked twice. In Composition and live performances. And again, i won't write something false. I did not say where simply because you have written the article and you should be knowing where. Added to this, this is an FA review. Comments should be brief. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I just couldn't see it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• • She then transitioned into "S&M" - This reads awkwardly as well.
    • How? That's what she did. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• How can Rihanna transition into a song? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some final comments (Prose that still looks sloppy);

• Although Rihanna had planned to perform "S&M" in its entirety to promote its release as a single, she only sang the chorus and one verse, inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?".
• I see some repetitive use of Rihanna
• She changed the performance - Is this the best way of saying this? Change would be like she did not even perform "S&M"

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done all three. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to Support All my concerns with regard to the prose have been addressed. I will do a quick check of the references and support. Well done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and references. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Comments from Tbhotch.^™ 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"for 4:03 (4 minutes, three seconds)." -> Why not 4:03 minutes or four minutes, three seconds, or something like that.

• Changed to (4 minutes, 3 seconds) Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"'Shut me up, gag and bound me/'Cause the pain is my pleasure/Nothing comes better'" -> consistency with the slashes (see section above, second para)

• Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I read "via iTunes" four times in the same paragraph

• Removed 3 of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"A blond woman in a red jacket with black fur on her shoulder. She is singing into a microphone" -> Am I missing something? Also, it is the only image with ALT text.

• All images have an alt now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'" -> I think that 'chains and whips excite [her]' has more sense in the sentence

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"In the UK," -> In the United Kingdom; as it is the first time it is mentioned

• Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"R&B / hip hop single" -> Shouldn't be R&B/Hip hop (if it is the name of a chart) if not MOS:SLASH applies

• The Official Charts Company actually list R&B/Hip hop songs as Urban, so have written Urban. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"and top-ten in the Netherlands,[51][52] peaking at numbers six and seven, respectively." -> What does that mean?

• It charted on two separate Dutch charts. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

""S&M" charted at number eight in the Czech Republic.[53]" -> Why don't you merge it?

• The sentence would be too long then.

"and walks Hilton" -> Perez Hilton? Paris Hilton?

• Sorry, Perez was previously mentioned in the first para but it was removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

All "Apple"s should be "Apple Inc" (without the dot, it will appear)

• Only Time Inc. should have the Inc. included. All others should not. Pretty sure it is mentioned above. If not, then it's in the last FAC. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Ref 64.- Consistency needed

• I have written |work=Billboard|Prometheus Global Media| Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Ref 105.- Accessdate missed

• Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Ref 132.- Accessdate missed

• Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The main concern I have is the correct use of English. Since Rihanna is Barbadian, and Barbados is part of the Commonwealth, shouldn't this article be written in Barbadian English? Words like "conceptualized", "color", "criticized", etc. shouldn't be written in British English? The same concern with the dates. Tbhotch.^™ 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Considering that the word "Barbadian" only appears once in the entire article, that she resides in the US, that the song was produced in the US and that both the article and the single are highly US-centralized, I think American English is most applicable here. I think the lyrics of her songs are also written in AmE in her album booklets, though I'm not too sure about this last point. Auree ^★★ 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll ask to the respective MOS, considering that she is not Barbadian-American the article should have British English, in my view. Tbhotch.^™ 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Per WT:MOS the American English should be WP:RETAINED, unless there is a consesus at S&M talkpage or WP:RIHANNA to use British English. Tbhotch.^™ 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning to support. Considering that this article has been reviewed multiple times, if there are no problems with references, images or spot-checks, it'll have my support. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked at images and sources above. Spotchecks haven't been done though. (hint to anyone interested in doing so) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose

• Three block quotes for an article of this size is a bit excessive. The Britney Spears one I see as the most unnecessary and it adds little to nothing to the article.

  There are two block quotes now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  ... and the one that was removed is now a normal (but rather long) quotation. Paraphrase it, trim it or don't use the quotation at all. Second, I personally do not see the value in the Britney Spears block quote. "She really liked the song to begin with, but it was a different story when she had to sing it, and she really wanted to be a part of it." is the only part of the quote that adds something to the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Critical reception is excessively using quotations. I understand this is a place where there will be more quotations from the rest of the article, but this is too much.

  Doing Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Better, but first paragraph is still do dense in quotations. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's fine now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Likewise the Reception and ban section, but to a lesser extent.

  Doing Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Could use a bit more work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's fine now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)"" - what aspects of these songs exactly are similar? This sentence is open to interpretation.

  That's it. He just compared it their production. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I just happened to notice that the source does not compare the two singles, but only says that Stargate put their signature sound on both songs. The source also says something about the "steady-rocking dance track, with ominous, snarling keyboard sounds." You could integrate that into the section too. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing was done to address this concern. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  You said it was a suggestion. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  An idea to get you started. "X compared the song to Y" is not enough. It's vague and leaves readers hanging. The statement isn't even supported by the source. Did you read my "suggestion"? Please fix this, thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done. ANd it is supported, it's clearly there. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write."" - that's somewhat unprofessional writing

  I disagree. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  It's a journalistic tone: not encyclopaedic. Try something like "shows the writer's lack of good ideas", or remove the word "good", or something. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities"" - should be in composition?

  Moved. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The information about radio censorship should be moved to the Release section, not in Critical reception, which is for reviews from critics.

  Moved. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Per WP:ORDINAL, chart positions should be consistently written as numerals or words.

  All chart positions are numbers now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Chart performance repetitively says "S&M" over and over. Replace these instances with it, or the single, or etc.

  Changed a lot of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The resolution of the lawsuit was announced on October 19, 2011, as Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money." - can be tightened to "On October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money."

  Changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Synopsis section of Music video could use more "she"s than "Rihanna"s.

  Changed a lot of them. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?"" - awkward "inserted".

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "She gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears" - interview to whom? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  It doesn't say. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  The comma placement here is awkward.
  Overall, there is still more work to be done. Some concerns need revisiting. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Removed the comma. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Oppose based on criterion 1a. From the lead alone:

• "...the song was released on January 21..." – Was the song released (i.e. published) or was this recording of the song released?

  Released in the sense that people can buy it, as usual. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  People can buy the legal rights to the song?? Or did you mean the sheet music? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  When people can buy the song, yes, a CD or a digital download. Why are you making things so difficult and unnecessarily complicated?? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...instrumentation comprises of..." – explanation here

  Changed to consists. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...which are about sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes..." – wouldn't BDSM cover all of that?

  No. If you would have read the comments above, you would see that BDSM is the consensual use of restraints and other prohibitive devices, which is none of those. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Really? You might want to read the BDSM article... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  I did. Sexual intercourse is not a restraint, sadomasochism is not a restraint, and a fetish is not a restraint. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...were conceptualized by Dean, who attempted to reflect Rihanna's sexually confident persona."

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Regarding the previous sentence, I don't see support for that idea later in the article.

  Writing and theme section. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  No, there's nothing in that section to support the idea. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  There is now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  You've repeated the phrase in the body, but the citation you paired with it doesn't support the idea at all. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "'S&M' received divided opinions..." – Something's weird about a song's receiving an opinion. Songs can receive reviews or praise or scorn, but I'm not sure about opinions. Maybe because opinions remain with you but reviews/praise/scorn transfer...?

  A review, praise or scorn is still an opinion. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." – The second part does not necessarily contrast the first. It's not even meaningful on its own, as Loud could be the worst album of all time for all I know.

  Okay? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "The song was number one on the singles charts in Australia, Canada, and Poland, attaining top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland and Spain." – This construction suggests that reaching number one in A/C/P is how a song attains a top-five position in G/F/I/S. Or maybe the other way around...

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The previous example contains one list that uses a serial comma and one that does not. Check for consistency throughout.

  What is a serial comma? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

See Serial comma, usage should be consistent. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Usage remains inconsistent. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• "...at the 2011 BRIT Awards, and sang..." – What does that comma accomplish?

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• "...but photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit and alleged that it incorporates ideas..." – Based on the construction, "it" refers either to "the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality". I suspect you actually mean the video generally, so state that.

  Well it's obvious considering the previous sentence talks about the video, and the first part of the sentence talks about critics opinions. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Indeed it's obvious, but you're here because you believe the prose is excellent and not merely sufficient to get the point across, right? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  So you agree it's obvious? What's your point then? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Criterion 1a. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One more from later in the article, just for fun (spot the errors):

• "The photographer continued to explain why he felt a lawsuit was appropriate and likened it to singers sampling other artists' lyrics and melodies for use in their own work..."

   ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

How can a lawsuit be likened to sampling? Graham Colm (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This argument is very easy to comprehend. He is arguing that why should a singer be able to copy things for their music videos when they have to get permission to use another singer's song. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

It might be easy to understand, but it's poor prose. You have to replace it in the sentence (a pronoun, which refers to lawsuit) with whatever it actually refers to. Graham Colm (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a grammatical mistake in the sentence, too. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been changed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I would also point out that only minor changes were made between the last failed nomination and this one.

Your point is redundant. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Redundancy, exactly. Why should reviewers bother with a nomination that's already failed when minimal changes have occurred in the interim? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it can't be that bad, I have 3 supports, so. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 05:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a new error has now been introduced in the lead: "The song's lyrics, which are about sex, sadomasochism, bondage and fetishes." Auree ^★★ 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Corrected. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I removed a bunch of redundant commas from the article and have also made the non-usage of the serial comma consistent; however, I came across this, which is exceedingly cumbersome: "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, the album version of "S&M" and its official remix sold a combined total of 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the chart." as well as this "The end of the video flashes between scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna suggestively eating bananas, strawberries and cream, and bejeweled ice cream." Please revise. Auree ^★★ 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done both. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lonely Wikipedian with GSOH, partial to the odd dram and obsessed with remote Scottish islands, seeks the company of like-minded lady, preferably of aristocratic background. Existing marriage to establishment figure no barrier to friendship. Or, if you prefer: I am nominating this remarkable tale, which has been a GA since 2010 and was kindly peer reviewed by the estimable Ruhrfisch in the same year , in honour of the forthcoming Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. Yours etc., the somewhat ring-rusty Ben MacDui 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Great to see you back (nudge :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you - I wandered off into list-mania and wondered if I would ever get back. I have just finished reading The Hobbit but I'll look at SitHMA asap - hopefully tomorrow. Ben MacDui 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review and spot check

• [4] Undiscovered Scotland: doesn't actually say Gladstone's Land was built in 1620.
• [5] NTS: as above

I think the NTS one used to. I've added another from VisitScotland.Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

NTS moved some information to the "What to see and do" button but it is more equivocal than VisitScotland ("the spectacular painted ceiling dating to 1620") so I have left them both. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd remove Undiscovered Scotland to reduce citation clutter in the image caption, and change "built" to "completed" just to be clear. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ben MacDui 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• [7][8] thepeerage.com is a self-published enthusiast site; the article says Charles Erskine was the 10th Earl and John was the 11th but the website says Charles was 22nd and 5th Earl; the 10th relates to the title Lord Erskine. The ODNB says John was 22nd and 6th. I'm inclined to cut thepeerage.com sources and all mention of the numbering. We don't really need to know the number.

I'd be happy to avoid getting lost in this genealogical maze if you think it can be bypassed! Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I replaced one peerage.com with the ODNB, but they don't list his dear papa. "Tribe of Mar" may not be much better than peerage.com but I don't think there is anything controversial here. This link may look more prestigious, but there isn't much to choose between them in my view. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've no qualms about Tribe of Mar. I agree on the Stanford site: leave it out. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [9] Bruce does say 11th Earl [& 1st Duke] (and "Bobbing John")
• [13] archaeologydaily is reprinted from the Times online. I see the "wild beauty" quote, but not much of the other material. The "superficially uneventful domestic life" and her role as factor isn't covered in the Times, so I would move the cite to the first sentence, keeping/using Maclean and Macaulay suitably for that and the rest.

Done. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [16][17] thepeerage.com: again you could consider dropping this if the material is covered by [15]

It isn't, so I have added corroborating refs of a similar mien. Nothing in ODNB or Keay & Keay (1994). Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I might be able to check in Burke's or the Complete Peerage at some point in the week. I agree there's nothing controversial about the material, but I'd prefer to avoid these sites if possible. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced thepeerage.com. I've kept Cracroft as the author is an Honorary Fellow of the Heraldry Society. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• [34] NTS: the article says "believe it [the cleit] was rebuilt on the site of a larger black house where she lived" the source says "traditionally said to be the house where she was held prisoner, but this is unlikely to be true".

There are other sources about this I can add. She clearly had a dwelling but I doubt anyone can be certain of its precise location. Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added a clarificatory note. It is my guess that the NTS mean that it "is unlikely to be true" she lived in the cleit itself. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks great now, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [35] RCAHM: material supported by source
• [36] NTS: figures match those given at the source
• [49] MacLeod: Do you want to add location (Edinburgh) and page (24) as with the other books?

Done. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [54] artoftheprint: not supporting a contentious point but there are better sources than what could be described as a shop.

When you live where I do a shop is something to be treasured. The ODNB has an entry and I have replaced artoftheprint with it. Ben MacDui 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [57] seoras.com: calls itself a "blog" so may not qualify as a reliable source; I couldn't find Norman MacLeod's naming as an accomplice to the kidnapping at this site. If the material is supported by [56], maybe remove this source?

It is the epithet "Wicked Man" that Macauley doesn't use. There are a few refs on the Norman MacLeod article itself I could borrow if I can't find anything better. Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The ODNB has an entry about him, but whilst noting that "rather uniquely, no praise-poem for him has come down in the oral tradition of the Isle of Skye" remarkably, they fail to mention the name by which he is best known. Happily the Celtic Magazine obliges and I have used this rather than Seoras/George. Ben MacDui 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [70] The quote from Scott's edited journal is "became the nearest and most confidential of all his Edinburgh associates." I think it is worth specifying more exactly that these are the words of the editor David Douglas (in footnote 3 on page 40 of the 1891 edition published by Harper of New York) not Scott. I'd format this reference in the same way as the other books.

Done. There is no sign that I can see of the quote being Douglas's on the Gutenberg but I have added this to the text. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the version at archive.org: [11]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• [71][72] It's a little awkward that the date is given by the BBC and the sonnet title by the critic but the sentence is verifiable taking both cites together. Is there a reason to use https:// for the BBC site rather than http://?

None and done.Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the external links the two PSAS links are identical. Can you link direct to [12] and [13]?

Done. I didn't originally as I get fed up with the ads moving the source files around. Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

All the above are now attended to. Ben MacDui 12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Lady Grange.jpg, File:Blaeu - Atlas of Scotland 1654 - ÆBUDÆ INSULÆ - The Hebrides.jpg, File:James Erskine.jpg: strictly speaking there should be a United States license tag and source for the electronic file as well. Though this isn't a problem in my view. All other files fine. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I updated the lead image File:Lady Grange.jpg to a higher resolution version and added the source. I have not carefully re-read the article yet, but will comment here once I do. My recollection from the "PR on the talk page" was that this was in very good shape back then. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ben MacDui 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Super article.

• Can I suggest taking Note 7 out of the notes and placing it within the text? Otherwise, I'm left thinking "How did she get the letters off?"

A good suggestion I will look into asap. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Done - see below. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• What about Lady Grange's sister-in-law Lady Frances Pierrepoint, Lady Mar? Was she also forcibly confined by Lords Mar and Grange on the grounds of insanity? Should/can she be mentioned?

I was aware of her alleged insanity - hardly surprising if one is deprived of delights of Scotland that are highlighted so well by Lady Grange's story - but I don't know much about it. She apparently outlived Mar, but there is a hint of suspicion.Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about the subject at ODNB that I can see. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are the articles linked in the "See also" section linked to Lady Grange by reliable sources?

I fear they may not be. I may have missed something in MOS - I read that these links are "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". I am notoriously deficient in the latter and welcome a more active appraisal of their worth - which I confess may have been ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Should the article title be "Rachel Erskine, Lady Grange" or "Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange"?

This is a good question, which I wondered about at the time. She is almost always referred to as simply "Lady Grange", which doesn't help. She signs both the letter of separation and the letters from St Kilda "Rachell Erskine" (sic) although the heading to the former calls her "Rachell Chiesly". I don't mind and I am rather unfamiliar with protocols for biographical articles.Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I have a very marginal preference for Erskine, but I'm not bothered either. I've created redirects instead. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's one cite template used (for Mackenzie). Should cite templates be used throughout, or not at all? DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this is a rhetorical question and I apologise for my laziness. Fixed - although the refs/dashes combination looks odd to me. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm still cautious over the See alsos; and would like to see note 7 moved, but this is a well-structured, good read complemented by appropriately licensed and positioned images. Sources and style check out. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your detailed attention. Note 7 has been moved, and I have removed Iris Robinson from the see alsos. It is arguably a breach of BLP protocols for her to remain there without there being some sourced connection. I doubt the remaining two will offend. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support and a couple of comments from a Sassenach "How different, how very different from the home life of our own dear Queen!" Great job, just two things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the lead, I'd have "nine" rather than the numeral since it's less than ten
• I wonder if there is any way of making it clearer that Village is a place name, otherwise someone will query the cap, or "correct" it to lower case?

Done and many thanks. I also added an invisible comment re the Village. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have now carefully read the article again and find it meets the FA criteria. As noted above, I also reviewed this on the talk page and have now found that almost all of my comments there have been addressed. I still think it would help to somehow explain "barracked" - perhaps a wikitionary link to "jeer" (so "For example, she barracked her husband in the street and in church...")? Nicely done (and poor Lady Grange). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks (again) and done. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OpposeProblem: The prose is compelling, but reading through, I find the following:-

By any standards, Lady Grange's story is a remarkable one and several key questions require explanation. Firstly, what drove James Erskine to these extraordinary lengths? Secondly, why were so many individuals willing to participate in this illegal and dangerous kidnapping of his wife, and thirdly how was she held for so long without rescue?

This opinion is neither attributed nor cited, and thus reads like the editorial voice loud and clear. Other similar instances:-

• "The third question is perhaps the easiest to answer"
• "There is also little doubt that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor."
• "As for Lady Grange herself, her vituperative outbursts and indulgence in alcohol were clearly important factors in her undoing."

All of these instances, and possibly others, detract from the neutrality of the prose and in my view require rephrasing or direct attribution to eliminate the POV. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my mind there is a clear distinction to be made between an "editorial voice" and a "point of view". The one is simply a device to introduce the text, whilst the latter is clearly a form of bias. I am not aware of any reason why the former cannot be used. Nonetheless, your points are well made and I will attempt to address them.

• "By any standards… held for so long without rescue?"

One of the problems here is that although the Lady Grange affair is referred to in numerous sources, few of them give the subject more than cursory treatment. For example, Johnson treats it as a humorous aside, Maclean devotes a page or two but relies on the Sobieski Stuart's defence of the Highland aristocracy. In the present era only Macauley provides any real detail and there is therefore not much modern analysis to refer to. She addresses each question although I don't recall a passage in which she lists them. It would be quite possible to remove this para in its entirety and just enumerate the various "motivations" without any kind of framing. This would remove the need to address the "The third question is perhaps the easiest to answer" problem you raise - although I wonder if you think perhaps that it isn't? If I may, I have some questions of my own. Firstly, are any of the questions raised not genuinely worthy of discussion? Secondly, would the prose work better without the framing? Finally, Do you think it would it be less "point of view" to keep the questions but make them less direct? - something like:

"By any standards, Lady Grange's story is a remarkable one and several questions arise. These include, what was it that drove James Erskine to these extraordinary lengths, why were so many individuals willing to participate in this illegal and dangerous kidnapping of his wife and how was she held for so long without rescue?"

I have no issue with the basic material, but we need to get away from the impression that you, individually, are leading and framing the terms of the discussion. Thus, I would expect the paragraph to begin someting like: "Critics have characterised Lady Grange's story as remarkable, and have identified several key questions requiring explanation". After the three questions I would expect to see citations to the critical sources that have raised these questions. Without such attribution, the questions read as the result of your personal analysis, which is OR. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is also little doubt that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor." is followed immediately by an example: "Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children."- which is cited. Is the notion in doubt? It has rather been weighing on my conscience that Macauley devotes some thought to the issue of gender that has been rather skipped over - it's easy enough to add a few more bits of information and I'll give this some consideration - although I doubt the modern reader is in any doubt about the importance of the theme.

Done. Ben Mac

Dui 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The notion is not in doubt, but you need to frame it so that it is presented as Macauley's view rather than your own. I don't have access to this source, but something like "In her account of the affair, Margaret Macauley emphasises that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor, and that although numerous documents..." etc would be fine. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "As for Lady Grange herself, her vituperative outbursts and indulgence in alcohol were clearly important factors in her undoing." Again this is sourced at the end of the following sentence. I will add the same ref to this sentence. Ben MacDui 10:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ben MacDui 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Better, but I would still recommend the removal of "remarkably enough", unless the phrase can be specifically attributed. Likewise, "This may become easier to understand..." should be part of the same attribution. I hope I have made myself clear in expounding these issues, which are relatively small in the context of what I think is in general an excellent and star-worthy article. Please ping my talkpage if you are in any further doubt as to my concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We still have the unattributed "By any standards..." and "remarkably enough..." etc, and until these are rephrased to eliminate the editorial voice, I must regretfully oppose. I have indicated how these problems can be resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mostly done.

• Macauley does not really list the second "question" as a question in her preface but states that Grange's "mafia of male friends" helped him "find his own unique solution".
• "18th-century attitudes to women in general" still needs attention but I think the rest are fixed. Ben MacDui 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now also attempted. Ben MacDui 18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• One more, if you would: "The question as to why no successful rescue was ever effected is easy to answer. The Hebrides were very remote from the anglophone world in the early 18th century and no reliable naval charts of the area became available until 1776.[Note 12]" The "easiness" of the question is a passing comment.; I suggest: "The reason why no successful rescue was ever effected lies in the remoteness of the Hebrides from the anglophone world in the early 18th century. No reliable naval charts of the area became available until 1776.[Note 12]". Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ben MacDui 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. in European football

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is now very close to featured standard. After the previous nomination failed i listed the article for peer review, which was constructive and addressed a number of issues with the article. Thanks n advance for taking you rime to review the article, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Shankly years: "with some Liverpool players feeling cheated by his decisions" is one of those with + -ing sentence structures that the prose people complain about. Could use a re-wording, if possible.

done NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence as a whole now reads "The second leg was controversial: Shankly described it as 'a war' he felt that the referee, Jose Maria Ortiz de Mendibel, had shown bias toward Internazionale, the Liverpool players felt cheated by his decisions." A never-ending sentence that needs a break or two, and some punctuation after the quote. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok made a few changes, should read better now. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fagan years: The Benfica link is a bit of overlinking, as the club was linked in the previous section. UEFA was also linked earlier in the body.

done NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Benitez years: Not sure a source from 2005 is enough to say that "debate still continues" about the controversial goal against Chelsea.

reworded NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• What makes LFC History (refs 88, 89, and 93) a reliable source? I'm aware, since I've asked about it before, that other folks at FLC haven't voiced any issues regarding its reliability. However, this is a different process and the relative strength of sourcing required is probably still a little higher here than at FLC, much as I wish that FLC will achieve parity one day in this regard. Restating the case you've made for the site at FLC may help the source checkers here in their verdicts. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, LFC History is a statistical site which provide the official stats of the club. This is evidenced by the sixth paragraph on this page. NapHit (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• In 'Return to Europe', "The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s as Liverpool won a cup treble with the UEFA Cup, the FA Cup and the League Cup" → replace 'with the' with 'consisting of the'

done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• In Benitez years, "A poor start, with two losses in their first four games...", need to clarify that they were in a group immediately. It was not necessarily a 'poor start' because they got through the treacherous third qualifying round, didn't they?! 'A poor start in the group stages...' would be better. That would mean 'in the group stages' near the end of the sentence becomes redundant.

implemented your suggestion NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Having finished fifth in the Premier League in 2004–05, Liverpool were not guaranteed entry into the Champions League, and faced the prospect of not being able to defend their European title", remove the comma between Champions League and 'and'.

done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "A third-place finish in the 2007–08 Premier League...", Arsenal finished third in the Premier League in 2007–08, I'm guessing you mean fourth?

Indeed, not sure how I missed that one, done NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• For references, BBC Sport is the 'work', BBC is the 'publisher'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

done, thanks for the comments, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "As runners-up to Manchester United in the 1996 FA Cup Final, Liverpool were able to compete in the 1996–97 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup", isn't the Cup Winners' Cup for winners of domestic cup comeptitions? I am aware that as Manchester United won the double that season, their spot was allocated to Liverpool. You may need to clarify that; if you feel it has nothing to do with the main body of the article put it as a footnote, if you do think so -- slot it into the sentence.

added a bit about this, although it was in the article a bit earlier as liverpool qualified for it in 1971-72 despite losing the final to Arsenal. NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, must have missed that. Have reverted to its previous form.

• "The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s", disambiguous - 1980s refer to a period. Ideally you should which season it is.

done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Liverpool advanced through three qualifying rounds and met Chelsea...", replace met with 'were paired up with'

reworded a bit different to yours, paired up with suggests they just played Chelsea, should read clearer now. NapHit (talk)

• "A fifth place finish in the 2009–10 Premier League...", seventh? – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that, done NapHit (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• In several cases, such as this one, "By beating Roma 2–0 in the second group stage, Liverpool progressed to the quarter-finals. Liverpool..." wouldn't it be sufficent if you replace the bolded part with 'The club', or if you are referring to a specific game → 'The team'. I think you will find it flows better for one. Have a read through the entire article because I feel in some cases, not all it can be placed in.

Gone through the article, and replaced multiple uses of liverpool where appropriate NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• "the winners of the Cup Winners' Cup in the European Super Cup, but failed to retain the Super Cup", replace bit in bold with 'trophy'.

done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• "UEFA banned English clubs" → "UEFA banned all English clubs"

done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Under Return to Europe after Liverpool won the first leg against Bayern, "This appeared to be to Liverpool's advantage...", Could be improved no? Something like "This gave Liverpool a vital advantage..."

I think its fine the way it is, as it did appear to be to the club's advantage, yet they went out in the next leg. I think they the sentence is worded at the moment sums up what happened perfectly fine. NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "A seventh place finish in the 2009–10 Premier League meant..." seventh-place should be hyphenated for consistency. – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

done NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 84 does not verify Liverpool group standing - in fact it's just the group tables for the competition this season.

added correct ref NapHit (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Under records, is there 'Biggest defeat' to correspond 'Biggest win'? – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

after a bit of searching, I've found it and added it. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• "A seventh-place finish in the 1998–99 FA Premier League meant the club did not qualify for Europe...", slight niggle with this part. Liverpool could have qualified by means of reaching a final of a domestic cup competition that season, so league form shouldn't take precedent regarding qualification in Europe. I would suggest adding "on virtue of their league position" at the end of the sentence or inbetween "Europe" and "in 1999–2000". – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure its necessary. I see what you're saying, but if they had qualified for Europe through a final, it would be mentioned, as it is whenever that has been the case in the rest of the text. NapHit (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed. Prose is good and the article by and large is comprehensive because of the use of statistics and a detailed summary table. I have no problems with the sourcing as NapHit has shown the validity of LFCHistory above. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me present you an article about the largest Russian Catholic church. The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary survived the Revolution, WWI, and WWII. During that time, it was used for other purposes, but finally, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was reconstructed and reconsecrated, and it is nowadays an active church.

The article just recently passed the second Good Article Nomination, it was copyedited by User:Binksternet, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:GiacomoReturned, User:Gandydancer, User:Mark Arsten, User:Jimfbleak, User:Wehwalt, and others during the mainpage appearance. Thanks again to anyone who assisted! :) It is a WikiCup nomination.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: GreatOrangePumpkin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just listed this article as GA quality, but it needs more expansion to become FA. For instance, it has nothing about the conflict with Eastern Orthodox leaders who did not want to have the cathedral restored, who did not appreciate Roman Catholics regaining a toehold in what they consider their territory: Moscow. There were Orthodox protests in 2002 but they are not summarized in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, there were no riots between those denominations. Of course the Orthodox criticized this decision, but after a while they have to forfeit anyway. I am not sure what 2002 protest you have in your mind, and I am not sure if they were influential and if we need to include this information on this article, as they could be just minor disputes. I only know one notable critical decision, but between the Russian Orthodox Church and Hinduism. But maybe I find something you have proposed. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The sense of "protests" I intended was not "riots" but publicised vocal and written complaints, non-violent activism against the Roman Catholic expansion signified by the restoration of the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ugh, why do we need this information? I believe it is way too off-topic, and I was not able to find such information; maybe I have better luck at the archives in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But I have no intention to travel only to find a few information. With the 2002 disputes, do you mean the signing of the "Venice Declaration of Environmental Ethics"? But I don't see why it should affect this church, but Alexy II just critized this decision. I assume it has nothing to do with this article.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I added a sentence about Alexy II's response, but still think it is trivial.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, the Alexy II quote is fitting. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I am striking my 'oppose' vote. I was mistaken in thinking that there was more missing content. The past friction between the Eastern Orthodox people and the Roman Catholics was not focused on the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to know what other reviewers think about this. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport: The article does not actually look too bad; it's quite nice. But do not fully trust my remark as I have never read an article about churches nor have I been to one in quite some time. Brackets around ellipses are not necessary and are better removed. In fact, the "[...] [Every detail]" seems a bit redundant and probably does not even need ellipses as the "[Every detail]" takes the place of all that is omitted from the source. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the brackets. Regards. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why were they removed from the "Every detail" as well? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now in brackets.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to support with a few concerns (this article was really well done, by the way):

• "Bearing in mind the council's requirements, on 16 May 1895 the parish purchased a 10 hectare site on Malaja Grusinskaja street" - a bit awkward with the date right there, but I won't mind if it is left unchanged.
• "Groundbreaking was in 1899, but construction did not start until 1901 and continued until 1911." - could be tightened, maybe to "Groundbreaking was in 1899, and construction took place from 1901 to 1911." Now, you also don't have to use the word "until" twice.

• Reworded

• "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012). Much of the cost was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow. More funding came from Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus." - these two sentences are a bit short, so you could connect them maybe? "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012), much of which was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow and Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus."?

• Reworded

• "Observers that argue for an earlier construction date state that they were damaged during World War II and left dismantled for some time." - "state" would be past tense, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

• Yes, it should be simple past. Changed.

• Per MOS, nbsps should be added before roman numerals, such as in "Pope John Paul II" and "Alexy II".

• Added

• Please check for overlinking: Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, stained glass, Saint Andrew and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow are linked more than once in the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delinked. Thank you very much for reviewing! --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure. The support was well deserved. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment, on a very quick glance, I couldn't find anything to complain about :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I do. It's a page with no conclusion and finale; it needs a "wrapping up" at the end to be a well written page. I have copyedited it, and it's a very interesting page, but everything needs a intro, information and conclusion. Giacomo Returned 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a digital, and not a paper encyclopedia, there is no real "start" or "end". Wikipedia is not the ultimate encyclopedia with every piece of knowledge. Or maybe I incorrectly understand you; how about you give me an example of what you mean?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just basic rules of writing, one introduces the subject (the lead) then, then presents all the information in an understandalble form (chronologically/poltically or whatever depending on te subject) and then conclude by drawing together all the strings mentioned in the above and referred to in the lead. You cannot just finish a well written page by saying ".....(named after the patron saint of archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz), "Anniversary-2000" and "St. Victor" (named after the patron saint of Bishop Wiktor Skworc).." As it is, the page just stops in midflow, it does not end. Giacomo Returned 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo, I removed the brackets from the last sentence of the last section. I am still not sure how to "end" this article. The last sentence of the lead is about the listing, but unfortunately there is not much information about its legacy or reception. What I could do is to reinstate the organ disposition, but one user said it was unnecessary. Feel free to discuss this. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not expressing myslef very well; the page needs a final chapter/section (like in a book) uniting all the loose threads together - make a new final section and say what is going on there today (steal from other sections if necessary) - relate any plans for the future - you can even mention resident priests, numbers of the congregation - all that sort of thing - just leave the page on a positive note. Giacomo Returned 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can see where Giano's coming from - often we have a "Popular Culture" or "cultural depiction" section. In this case it might be a "cultural significance/legacy" section - has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? Is this church seen as an icon? Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? Some of the material from the "Renovation and reconsecration" section might be expanded upon and placed in a "legacy/revival/cultural significance" section - has the pope been since 2002? How many times etc. I think this is doable and would be a fine way to end the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, there is not much information available. I am still not sure how to build such a section, as its reception was mentioned throughout the text. has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? No, there was no revival in Catholicism in Russia; quite the opposite: because of conflicts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, there were logically no revivals (see also Roman Catholicism in Russia). Is this church seen as an icon? No, as far as I know; mainly because Catholicism is a minority denomination in Russian, and the church was only for a few years active, among other issues. Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? see my first response; no, the church itself was not discussed (I am not sure what you exactly mean?) but the relation between the ROC. has the pope been since 2002? No; Pius XII never visited Russia; John Paul II never visited Russia despite expressing a desire; Benedixt XVI has not visited Russia yet. So I can't imagine the final section; maybe you could help somehow?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Happy to help once I clear some other stuff. I'll have a think about how to approach this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now as Giacomo sadly Returnedired, it is unknown whether we can manage this anyway.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it extraordinary that we have no rules to minimise this unreadable clutter at the top of so many articles on foreign places and subjects. Here we have a good example of why some or all of the garbage needs to be footnoted or appear further down—not interrupting with more than three lines between the opening item (the subject) and the second item ("is"). I've indented to show the lineage against the infobox.

""The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Russian: Собор Непорочного Зачатия Пресвятой Девы Марии Sobor Neporotschnovo Sachatiya Presvyatoj Devy Marii, in colloquial speech sometimes Костёл/Kostyol or Кирха/Kirkha – "the Catholic church") is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.

The cyrillic scripts are in the Russian WP; that is why we have it. There's a quick link to their article at the left, if any English-speaker wants to see the cyrillic script. Funnily enough, we're not taught cyrillic at grade school. And why we need that and a transliteration of it in roman script, all aclutter at the start, eludes me. I look forward to the time when en.WP matures and can start an article thus:

The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.

... with either a footnoted or the information in a less privileged place than in the first four lines of the lead. Ah, now I'm engaged and know what it is withough hunting through a jungle. Tony (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I'll back you on that, Tony1, but in the right venue. This FAC discussion is not the place. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the last part in the brackets. However, I must disagree with you to remove the original name in cyrillic; "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary" is just a translation, so it is an inofficial name (as beside the Russian name there is no correct one for this church). The transliterated title is, logically, important for those who do not understand cyrillic. Furthermore, you are also incorrect that it is from the Russian Wikipedia, but from the German (which is a Good Article). Regards. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic. The English title is just there for people who don't understand cyrillic, but still want to know its name meaning. So we could basically move it to the cyrillic title, but many won't like the idea. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic." ... errrr ... why? This is the English-language WP, not the Russian-language WP. I can cope with a short cyrillic string, but not an enormous, three-line interruption between the first and second items in the opening sentence. It's almost unreadable. The full cyrillic article is a click away, to the left. No other WP puts this enormous amount of unreadaable gobbledy at the opening. This is what the Russian WP inserts for St. Paul's Cathedral, for example: (англ. St. Paul's Cathedral). Your reduction of the cyrillic clutter and the transliteration in this nomination is welcome, but begs the question of why we allow editors to max out this valuable space at the top of an article with as much unreadable script and foreign-language transliteration as they can jam in. It is past a joke. Tony (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But the English Wikipedia is the biggest worldwide; the English language is the most spoken public language, enwp has more than 3 million articles; many readers are from foreign countries, including Russia. How about now?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason the Russian WP might be inclined to clutter the first four lines of its articles with three or four lines of English right at their openings. But they don't. Because it's rude to their readers. It completely dissipates the impact of the opening. And look, to the left a few centimetres in the English-language article (well, supposedly English-language): a link to the Russian article, complete with all of the cyrillic text you could ever want—that's why we have the links to the other WP articles to the left, isn't it: for Russian-speakers, whether native or non-native. This site is for those who want to read about the topic in English. There seems to be some objection to either (1) clicking to the native-language article if cyrillic text does mean more than a jumble to you; and/or (2) footnoting the gobbledy. What could possibly be wrong with a footnote—at least of most of the interruption, if you really can't bear to have no decorative script shoved into the opening sentence—to save the ruination of the first four lines for those who weren't privileged enough to have training in the Russian language? Tony (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think you are viewing an older version. I moved the cyrillic name to the infobox. I believe it is better as footnoting the clause. Just my personal taste, but let's see how others think. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I participated in a peer review of this article earlier, and all of the issues I spotted have been dealt with. The subsequent reviews and improvements by more experienced reviewers have only improved the article, I'm confident it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The article has improved to FA level. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your supports. What do you think about Giacomo's proposal to add a finishing section for stability?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm looking at St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (a Featured Article about another religious building in the former Soviet Union) right now, and that ends with a section on the building's architecture, so I don't think the current organization of this article should hold it up from promotion. It might still be a good idea to take a stab at closing the article differently, not sure that I could offer any good suggestions on how to close it though. Splitting the current use out of the history section and putting it at the end is the only idea that comes to mind, like in Stanford Memorial Church? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The last section of the Stanford church article mainly tells which denomination this church belongs to, the last section deals with weddings, church music and masses. I don't think any weddings take place in this cathedral; as for the church music and masses, this is mentioned throughout the text, so I don't think a new, final section is necessary.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have read through again, and made a couple of copyedits - it would be nice to have some sort of legacy section but agree with what GOP stated above - as such, if we can't construct one then it isn't a deal-breaker. Something could be said for keeping the structure as is, which is chronology then description, which a legacy section might not slot well in at the end. Anyway, a nice read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have taken the liberty of spot-checking the sources in Russian, and found no problems. Could someone provide an image review, paying particular attention to Freedom of panorama? Graham Colm (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The title change by the nominator last month, removing the " , Moscow", was unwise and should be changed back. The article has a hatnote, and there are loads of other cathedrals, with loads of local languages, with this basic name. Given the unfamiliarity of the building outside (and even inside?) Russia, the vagaries of translation and the use of short names, the current title is both ambiguous and unhelpful for the reader. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it was unwise to move without discussing it. I explained on the talk page why it should stay as is.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten I moved it. Your only rationale was "This is the only cathedral article with that name at the moment" which, if it is true, is only so in an extremely narrow way. Moving to Oppose for now as no FA should have a clearly ambiguous name. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception has no less than 35 entries, and yes, each one of them refers to the "Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary". At least 21 of them are in English-speaking countries and no doubt many have fuller formal names. A google search strongly suggests that the current name is not even the WP:COMMONNAME in English - plain "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception" is more popular, and there are "Blessed Virgin"s and "Most Holy Virgin Mary"s also. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you, I just moved the page to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). Note there are different Conceptions, such as Saint Anne's, so actually it was correct. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Oppose removed, thanks. The ", Moscow" would have better but whatever. There is only one Immaculate Conception - there was a legend that St Anne was herself the subject of a virgin birth but this is very different, & the idea was condemmed by the Catholic church centuries ago, & never made headway in any other Christian church. I hope I will have time to review the article fully. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the French church in the first paragraph of "History" appears to be misspelled (it should be "Saint Louis des Français"), but I couldn't find its name mentioned in the cited source. Could the nominator clarify? Ucucha (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the name, although you can also write "c" instead of a "ç". The source uses a short name, and on its homepage it is called "Saint-Louis-de-Français". See also [14]--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. Picking up on Giano's point above about the missing conclusion, what I think is missing is a concluding "Present-day" section or similar, to round the story off. The final paragraph of the lead tells us something about the cathedral's current use, but strictly speaking the lead ought not to include material not covered elsewhere in the article; rather it should be a summary of the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - An image review is still needed, and a response to the remaining questions and comments. I have requested an image review on the WT:FAC page. Graham Colm (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Arawe was a small-scale campaign fought between Allied (mainly United States) and Japanese forces on the island of New Britain between late 1943 and early 1944. The operation served as a diversion from a larger American landing on the island, and both sides regarded it as something of a sideshow to this. Nevertheless, the battle involved large scale Japanese air attacks as well as a series of raids made by the American and Japanese forces. As such, it's an interesting microcosm of the way in which much of the Pacific War was fought during this period.

I've been working on this article on and off for several years now. It was assessed as a GA last December and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review several weeks ago. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg: source site credits "F. Temple" for this image. Same with File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg. File:Japanese_Withdrawal_Routes_in_West_New_Britain.jpg and File:Arawe_Landings.png are credited to R.F. Stibil
  • I've added full details added for all images (and uploaded File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg to Commons under a much clearer name).
• be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
  • Only one is left now.
• Be consistent in how reprinted works and new editions are notated
  • Fixed
• "General Headquarters, Army Forces Pacific" or "General Headquarters Army Forces, Pacific"?
  • Oops: it's actually neither of the two versions I used, but actually 'General Headquarters, Army Forces, Pacific'. Well spotted and fixed.
• No citations to Hough and Crown 1952, Krueger 1979
  • Both removed
• Check formatting on Morison bibliography entry
  • Fixed
• Osprey or Ospery Publishing? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Osprey Publishing, fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

comments by Gnangarra

• My initial read of this article is thats its comprehensive, and clear no obvious issue stand out its not over loaded with jargon. I did stumble on the Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint.... <emphasis added> as British felt out of place but the link to Combined Chiefs of Staff clarified that, but I consider more during a second reading. Is the abbreviation necessary for Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) as its not used anywhere in the article. Gnangarra 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the IJA. I agree that it's complex to explain what the Combined Chiefs of Staff where in half a sentence when they didn't play much of a role here, but as they were the decision makers it needs to be said who approved what and this was the best I could come up with (after trying quite a few different options!). Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Just a thought can Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint Chiefs of Staff's proposal that Rabaul be isolated rather than captured.[5] become Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the proposal that Rabaul be isolated rather than captured.[5] remove British and US stops the double take I had, and as the section starts with In July 1942, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that the main objective of the Allied forces in the South Pacific and South West Pacific area commands was to neutralize the major Japanese base at Rabaul on the eastern tip of New Britain makes the use of Joint Cheifs of Staff's redundant and by removing it as well eliminates any confusion between the command level structure that your trying to avoid by using British and US in that sentence. Gnangarra 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • directed in the opening sentence can then become recommended, suggested or proposed as they really couldnt direct until the Combined Chiefs of Staff approval anyway Gnangarra 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • After a second reading and considering the issue I raised above, IMHO this article appears to be ready to be promoted to FA. Gnangarra 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I've reworded and slightly expanded that section to clarify what happened and improve the wording. Thanks a lot for your comments and support. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
            • That change works for me Gnangarra 10:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • I like the wording of the bit about the JCS and the CCS. The fact is that far from directing operations, CCS 301 endorsed operations that were already under way.
  • "advanced along the north coast of eastern New Guinea, capturing the town of Lae and the Huon Peninsula in September" The Huon Peninsula was not cleared until December.
    • Good point; I've removed 'September' here as it wasn't really necessary
  • "in favor of capturing Cape Gloucester to in order secure" Word order a little off here.
    • Tweaked
  • You describe Chips as commander of the 7th Fleet, which is true, but he was also in charge of the Allied Naval Forces, and therefore equal to Kenney, whereas the article might be interpreted otherwise due to the wording
    • Tweaked
  • Could the article consistently use "South West Pacific" without the hyphen, as this is the modern Australian form?
    • The article uses American English (as this was a US-dominated operation)
      • In that case, you should replace "South West" and "South-West" with "Southwest" Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you link "landing ship infantry" and "landing ship dock', as many readers will not be familiar with these ship types?
    • Good point; done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments and support. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Spot checks:
• fn 3: The JCS directive said: "Seize and occupy Rabaul". The source says: "the ultimate reduction of the Japanese stronghold at Rabaul". The article says: "neutralize", which is unsupported and incorrect. It was right at the A-class review this edit messed it up.
  • I've changed this to 'capture', which appears to be in line with both the source and the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm trying to avoid using 'reduce' as I suspect that people who are unfamiliar with military terminology won't understand what it means, though it is the best term for those who are familiar with this use of the word. I hope that this is OK, but would appreciate alternative suggestions for wording this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand the problem, which I have experienced myself in several other articles. I went through all the primary documents once attempting to discover when the decision was taken to neutralise rather than capture Rabaul. As it turned out, this decision was not taken at once by the JCS, and was opposed by MacArthur, so it took some time. The other point that this drove home is that while many accounts of battles in the Pacific start by talking about a JCS decision, in reality most of the planning was bottom up, with planning being done in the theatres and sent to the JCS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• fn 4, 11, 31, 54, 56, 73, 83, 85, 87, 96, 98 - all okay. No sign of close paraphrase.
• Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these spot checks.

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

• "expanded to 60 days of general supplies and six days worth of all categories of ammunition": I don't believe we implement WP:ORDINAL consistently, I'm just pointing out that some will object to "60 ... six". Also, Garner's prefers "days' worth". Also, why "days" in the first part and "days' worth" in the second? - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to '60 days worth'. I've used digits for numbers higher than 12 and words for numbers lower than this in the same sentence in previous FA-level articles without complaints, and I think that it works best. I'm not wedded to this though if anyone thinks that it really sucks though! Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Opposing forces. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your changes. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

James Garrard

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently re-written after obtaining a hard-to-find biography of Garrard. (Merry Christmas to me!) Chronicles the life of Kentucky's second governor – from Revolutionary War soldier to excommunicated Baptist minister to shunned abolitionist to the only Kentucky governor to succeed himself in office for a span of 200 years, I hope you'll enjoy the article. Hope to respond to concerns quickly. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• Page number(s) for the Note?
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Dictionary bibliography entry should use the title of the article cited, not the work as a whole
  • Apparently, the "chapter" parameter doesn't work with {{cite web}}. I've got the article title showing now, but I had to lose "Gale History in Context", which is the name of the electronic database. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether or not locations are included for books
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Compare editor format for Blanchard and Everman 2004
  • It's not an editor format. I used "in" to distinguish between two sources by H.E. Everman. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's in footnotes - I'm looking at Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see what you mean now. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the Collins source is self-published, how does it satisfy WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Collins is recognized as a prolific early Kentucky historian. He has his own entry in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, and the entry specifically mentions Historical Sketches of Kentucky (the work cited in this article) as his most popular work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review: Five images in total, all five clearly in the public domain. I'll try to get a prose review done soon as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • I'd include a link for "common schools".
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • At one point you say his home was in Fayette County, then later in the same paragraph you say that his home was in the new Bourbon County, which was formed out of Kentucky County. It's a bit confusing. Did Bourbon arise from Fayette or Kentucky (or both)?
    • Technically, both. Kentucky County was first, created from Fincastle County, Virginia. Then Kentucky County was split into three counties, including Fayette. Part of Fayette was then carved out to form Bourbon. I've tried to clarify. See if it makes sense now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "Political career in Kentucky", I think "before" sounds better than "prior to". It means the same thing. It's a personal preference, though, and I won't withhold support if you stick with your wording -- just my two cents.
    • No, "before" works just fine. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll return with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been told in some of my FA nominations that "re-elected" is the British spelling and "reelected" is American. I don't totally agree, but someone else might bring it up, so it might be best to standardize them in non-hyphenated form.
    • Hmm. Didn't know that. I've changed to the "Americanized" version, although I like the British version better. Still don't get the "u" in "colour", though! :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "First term as governor", I think the last two words of this sentence are unnecessary: "Over the course of his tenure as governor, Garrard approved enabling acts for the creation of twenty-six new Kentucky counties; no other Kentucky governor oversaw the creation of as many new counties."
    • You're right. Deleted. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You use the word "opined" four times. It kind of sticks out.
    • Hehe. I like "opine". Changed three of them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "1799 gubernatorial election", there seems to be a word missing in this sentence: "Garrard Todd to fill the next vacancy on the Kentucky Court of Appeals after the election, which occurred in 1801." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite so. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hope I can address any additional issues and gain your support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All resolved, changed to support. Good luck!

Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:MHU. - Dank (push to talk)

• "2nd": see WP:ORDINAL. Also, avoid consecutive links when possible; you could just link "second governor of Kentucky" here, which will get your readers quickly to "Governor of Kentucky" if that's where they want to go.
  • Changed the ordinal, but the consecutive links follow a convention used in every Kentucky governor article, each of which is at least a good article. I'd like to keep that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "slavery protections": I think "guarantees of the continuance of slavery" would be easier to parse.
  • Works for me. I was trying to say something like this without resorting to forms of the term "abolition" because Garrard didn't necessarily advocate immediate abolition, only provisions for the eventual emancipation of the slaves. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Fredericksburg, Virginia": period needed.
  • Weird that I missed that. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "twelve children, five sons and seven daughters": five sons and seven daughters
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He later escaped and returned to his military service. ¶ In 1779, while still serving in the militia, Garrard was elected to represent Stafford County the Virginia House of Delegates. He interrupted his military service ...": repetition
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You say he was in the service, then you say he was still in the service, then you say he interrupted his service, then at the end of the paragraph he resumes his service again. I've tried to condense this; please make sure I didn't introduce any inaccuracies. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• "advocated for" (in three places): Garner's is silent. MWDEU and SOED recommend using "advocated" transitively. You might prefer "lobbied for". - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've used a mixture now. Good catch. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "he surveyed and entered at the state land office": "... and recorded" might be easier to parse, if that's accurate.
  • The jargon used in the source was "entered", but I'm pretty sure "recorded" is accurate, too. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "recently-created": see WP:HYPHEN and other punctuation guides. Search throughout for "ly-".
  • Fixed in a few places Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the latter being the location of Garrard's home.": conciseness, appositive. "Garrard's county of residence".
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • "The latter being" is wordy. I went with: "... and Garrard's county of residence, Bourbon." - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• "his friend, Augustine Easton, attended ...": restrictive appositive, so it's a little better without commas.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "five of these conventions, held in May and August 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792.": Possibly "... in May or August in 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792", but probably better would be to give just the years, or give the month and year for each.
  • This one is a little difficult. I don't have the months for all of them, but two were held in 1785, so the month is needed to differentiate between them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah I misunderstood, I thought it was in May or August in each of those years. Then: "... in May and August 1785 and in 1787, 1788, and 1792." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "article 9" (twice): Article 9, or the ninth article.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "it appeared as though": it appeared that
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "who was recently defeated": who had recently been defeated
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "chose and elector": chose an elector
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "thus he voted for Brown": comma splice. "so he voted for Brown" - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Among the pro-squatting legislation supported by Garrard were measures the forbade ...": Garrard supported pro-squatting legislation, including measures that forbade
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "A Democratic-Republican, Garrard agreed with Thomas Jefferson's dissension toward the Alien and Sedition Acts.": I'm not sure what this sentence is saying.
  • See if it is clearer now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In a November 7, 1798, address to the General Assembly": Garner's recommends rephrasing: "In an address to the General Assembly on November 7, 1798"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "on grounds": on the grounds
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Among the reforms were the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia; the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia; and provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf.": Per WP:MHU#series, it's better to put the element with commas last in the series if that makes the sentence easier to read, and it does, here, allowing you to remove the semicolon (an improvement because readers usually expect an independent clause after a semicolon): "Among the reforms were the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia, provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf, and the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia."
  • Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "required that a majority of voters had to approve": repetition (required, had to)
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "5,446 favored the call, 440 opposed it, but 3,928": 5,446 favored the call and 440 opposed it, but 3,928
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This cast doubt upon the true will of the people.": That's an opinion; whose?
  • Technically, I guess it is the opinion of the source's author. I have clarified that the doubt was in the minds of some legislators. I think that is supported by the idea that opponents reliably held that abstentions were votes against the convention and the fact that the legislature ultimately decided that there were not enough votes to call a convention in that election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "calling for another vote on the calling": one "calling" too many
  • Well, yes, that was a rather atrociously written sentence. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the electorate raised issues of their own.": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • Clarified, I hope. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "in the state's Bluegrass region, Jefferson County, and western Kentucky.": This can be misread that Jefferson County is the Bluegrass region. It's harder to misread this: "in the western counties, Jefferson County, and the state's Bluegrass region"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Unbeknownst": Many AmEng style guides prefer "Unknown".
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "further strained relations between him and the Senate": further strained his relations with the Senate
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He died January 19, 1822": He died on January 19, 1822
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We may have a few lingering issues to sort out on a couple of these, but I hope you will be able to support soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now Supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No major quibbles with any of your edits. Always good to have a review from you, Dank. Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Noisy Miner

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Mdk572 (talk · contribs)

Marj and I have buffed this little critter (found in everyone's backyard here in Oz ("noisy" is an understatement!) to give it a shot at the mainpage one day. Feel it is as good as many other bird FAs and there are two of us to address concerns pronto. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from PumpkinSky

1. Who's Marj? (curious, not in article history by that name)
2. Ref 3 has a date format that does not match the others. PumpkinSky talk 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• 1=Marj = user:Mdk572 Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 3 fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jim usual high standard, obligatory niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I made these edits, please check. In particular, I remove much double spacing from the text. Some of this was at the start of sentences, so may have been intentional, but was not consistent so I edited it out. If you prefer the older, AE type double spacing (no pov from me!), please make sure it's reapplied consistently.
• I pruned the "howevers", please check that the survivors are essential

• 1= looks ok to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two subspecies have long been recognised, with M. m. leachifound in eastern Tasmania, while the mainland population has been split into three in 1999. — "was split", I think, but clunky anyway. What about something like Four subspecies are currently recognised. The separation of the Tasmanian M. m. leachi is of long standing, and the mainland birds were further split in 1999?

• yep, I'll take that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that the change from Merops was because it was realised that it wasn't a bee-eater?

• If I can find a source which says that, I'll add, but I don't recall seeing any thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• One of their most obvious characteristics — perhaps add of the genus?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• A 1999 study suggested that two additional subspecies be recognised — are these now generally accepted?

• Schodde's 1999 book was one of the big landmark works, and the four are recognised in the official government list but some study is still needed to fine-tune. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Far North Queensland — is the capitalised "Far" correct?

• Yup, see Far North Queensland. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Ocyphaps lophotes) — why binomial for this but not other birds?

• binomials of bird spp. (but not genera) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, CoI as member of bird project, one more comment I notice that grevillea is lc in the text and capitalised in the image caption, they can't both be right. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've lowercased the cases where "grevillea" is used as the common name for the genus, rather than when it is italicised and used in a scientific name. Can be tricky.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images All appropriately licensed, I wonder if it's possible with the second image to clarify that User:Noodle snacks is J J Harrison. I know one redirects to the other, but it could be made explicit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Officer 1964 (unless that should be 1965?)

added some info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

64 typo fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• No citations to Beruldsen 1980

Reinstated. He is quoted by Higgins but is the recognised nest/eggs expert. Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 1: why the bolding?

Looks like double italics - title and scientific name. Fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles

Changed to consistent single within double Marj (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is ANU E?

Hosted by the Australian National University, ANU E Press publishes electronic scholarly works Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

Looks like I don't and Cas does. Think I have them removed them all.Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't mix {{citation}} with the {{cite}} family
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals

The cite doi template does not give publishers. Do you want to change the others to match Cas?Marj (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All journal publishers removed Marj (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• When listing Australian locations, be consistent in whether they include state name, just "Australia", or none of the above (more common names could include nothing, but consistently - compare Canberra and Sydney, which have about the same recognition), and if states whether these are abbreviated

• I'm going with states and unabbreviated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not

• all to two digits now (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is CSIRO, and why does Emu have two different publishers?

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - a government publisher of scientific and technical books and journals, including Emu, the mouthpiece of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists´ Union. It was previously published independently by the RAOU. Given CSIRO consistently and wikilinked first mention. Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice? In RL I'm used to giving the publisher when it is published by/for a noteworthy organisation only. So 'Nordic Society Oikos' but not 'Wiley-Blackwell' Is there a wikipedia or bird project guideline on this? Marj (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• How I've always worked is that I've never put a publisher for journals but always for books and web links where possible. Makes things alot simpler :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced

• should be all spaced now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated

• all aligned now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

• got dble pds Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 58: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk)

Hey, Cas, your green responses are created with some sort of template, I guess? Templates get more than double-counted (for some reason Gimmetrow can explain) in transcluded pages, and cause errors in the FAC archives per Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok -I'll de-templated them in a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• In the lead, you talk about Tasmanian and mainland birds before you give the essential context that it's an Australian bird.

• rejigged order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The lead mentions twice that the increase in this species's population has led other species to decrease.

• removed one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The nomenclatural discussion seems incorrect to me according to Article 23.9 of the Code. If M. garrula was actually suppressed by the Commission, it is not technically a nomen oblitum. I haven't seen the text of the opinion, though.

• I couldn't get the fulltext of the decision, but the oblitum designation is mentioned at the next ref. If you can get fulltext of FN7 I'd be grateful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed this now. Ucucha (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The lead and the body differ on their assessment of the validity of the two additional subspecies. Also, calling a subspecies a "race" is confusing.

• Ah yes, Higgins the HANZAB bible is cautious about fully accepting, but Schodde is another broad publication-review, and the official Australian Gov't directory accepts the four, so have updated accordingly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The description section says that the proposed subspecies lepidota is only in western NSW, but the map shows a large range in Qld.

• rejigged. correct and updated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "These churring calls vary between individuals,21 and coupled with laboratory tests showing Noisy Miners can distinguish calls by different birds, suggest this may be integral to the complex social structure of the species"—this sentence is a little too complex.

Ucucha (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• split last sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No further issues; haven't yet had a chance to look for sources that may have been missed. Ucucha (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Glen P. Robinson

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The last FAC, started on Nov 8 and closed on Dec 12, made it all the way down the page with only one reviewer; User:Fifelfoo proposed some excellent changes. Hopefully, this nomination will receive a bit more love than that one did. :) Disavian (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Glen Parmelee Robinson, Jr." Missing comma.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Author for FN 3 is missing.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• The caption for the photo is missing.
• "Atlanta-area science-based companies." --> "Atlanta-based science-related companies."
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• "moved to Valdosta, Georgia in" missing comma after Georgia; please check throughout article.
  • Done. That was the only instance I could find. Disavian (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "American possessions during World War II." --> American possessions during the war." Stating WWII twice in one sentence is awkward.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "radiology-related equipment"
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "it had $3.1 million revenue" --> "it had received $3.1 million in revenue"
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "and $1.9 billion in revenue in 2005." for consistency with preceding figures, please also provide the amount in today's money?
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• "As of 2006, he and his wife, Jan, have had five" Not sure about this, since I have a limited understanding of English grammar.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• FN 15 and 20 -- seasons should not be capitalised.
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'll be out all day judging a LEGO robotics competition, so it'll be a bit before I'm able to attend to most of your suggestions :) Disavian (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds cool -- enjoy yourself. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support My comments had been satisfactorily addressed; 1a/b/c/d/e (✔), 2a/b/c (✔), 3 (✔), and 4 (✔) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 02:05, January 23, 2012

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether locations are provided for books
  • Done. Disavian (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how magazine/journal publishers are notated, and indeed whether they are included at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Image appears unproblematic, though I don't have OTRS access to verify. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on content coverage, source quality, toolbox issues, citation formatting, inflation per last time's explanations, I think I spotchecked a few of the sources last time, I remember having gone through a fairly detailed process with this. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Golding Bird

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been through GA, PR and GOCE. It is about an important figure in the history of medicine. I believe it is now ready for FA. SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In his electrotherapy, Bird used both electrochemical and electrostatic machines (and later also electromagnetic induction machines) to treat a very wide range of conditions, such as some forms of chorea. Treatments included peripheral nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and electric shock therapy. Bird also used his invention, the electric moxa, to heal skin ulcers." - source?
  • The sources are at the end of the paragraph. Is there a specific problem.electric moxa section. The paragraphs immediately following the "Electricity" heading are an introduction to what follows (a mini-lede if you like) and contain no information that is not referenced in what follows (other than the reference to the New Frankenstein magazine).
• Use a consistent format for Bird's own articles
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • The bibliography is consistently last name, first name where alphabetical listings are of some use to the reader. Elsewhere the natural form of names are used.
• FN 30 and similar: there are two works with that title
  • Done
• Why not include both authors for Payne?
  • Done
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Done
• FN 72: why not put this in Bibliography?
  • Done
• Ranges should use dashes
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not months are abbreviated
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • Done
• FN 19: formatting
  • What is the issue? I don't see the problem.
• Don't include page numbers in Bibliography book entries
  • The only one that (now) has page numbers is Steel. This is because a specific, named chapter is being referenced.

In general, citation/referencing format should be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have gone through putting ref elements in a consistent order. SpinningSpark 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) to 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• tentative Support Comments (it has engaging prose and impresses as comprehensive, and formatting looks ok. I can't seeany actionable opposes but con't exclude that others will find things to fix. I'll keep an eye on developments but I think we're tentatively over the line here) - I'll jot some notes below and copyedit as I go. Feel free to revert me if'n I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

and was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. - I'd change "advanced" to "precocious" as it has a more specific meaning which I think is what you're trying to get at here.

I did mean "advanced" and this is my understanding of the sources, in the sense that Bird was knowledgable through his own self-study. It was certainly also precocious of course.

.. at a private school that was not very interested in science - hmm, "interested" one usually thinks of students not schools, I'd go with " at a private school that did not promote (or teach?) science"

"promote" is acceptable, "teach" is not, afair the sources do not directly state science was not taught. Science is not included in the classics so this is implied, but it would by synthesis to say so.

This must be a record - nine (9) consecutive paragraphs in the Life and career section begin with "Bird...". I will change a few.....

It was only eight before it was copyedited but that still leaves me 83% to blame! SpinningSpark 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oops! I've never seen this problem before, and completely overlooked it. Thanks for dealing with it, Casliber. --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now incorporated Casliber's second suggestion in the article. SpinningSpark 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering whether the first 3 sentences in the The electric moxa section (which are a bit repetitive) can be somehow folded in together. If you can't do it, I'll take a look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried something. The flow seems better now, in that one sentence deals with the name alone before we return to the main business. I'm not quite happy about the position of the "roughly two decades ..." clause yet. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am struggling to identify what you think is being repeated. The three sentences are addressing very different points: the date of invention, etymology of moxa, and link to electroacupuncture. The second sentence is about just the element moxa and needs to distinguish its subject from the whole phrase electric moxa. The cleanest way to do this is to start a new sentence, admittedly leaving a very short first sentence. The third sentence is already quite long, would become difficult if merged with the second sentence, and needs to disambiguate that the whole phrase rather than just moxa is being discussed. Sentence one and three could be run together, and may even read better, but with the disadvantage that the reader now has to wait for the next sentence before understanding why acupuncture is being discussed at all. SpinningSpark 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stfg. If you would prefer the exact date of the introduction of electroacupuncture, it is 1823 (Simpson, already cited). SpinningSpark 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reads better now. It wasn't strict repetition per se, I just thought it could be more economical with wording when I read it and I feel it reads better now...now where was I....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You were right:) --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

...for which Bird carried out an analysis of the milk of the porpoise and a dog bitch - I was going to suggest "...of the milk of the female porpoise and a dog", but then I think it is obvious it'd have to be female so maybe female is redundant. Either way, I think it is better than the current wording, which (oddly) specifies the sex of one animal and not the other....(?)

It is "bitch" because strictly speaking "dog" refers to the male of the species but I am happy for bitch to be deleted if others think that "dog" is acceptable. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable: "bitch" has a gender but "dog" is the whole species. How about "... analysis of porpoise and dog's milk"? Hmm ... now why do I want dog to have 's but not porpoise? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting grammatical question - am tempted to shift the animals from possessive to adjectival - "dog and porpoise milk"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that works. (Interestinger and interestinger :)) I've gone ahead and put it in. Is that OK, Spinningspark? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "Collateral sciences" - and google searches seem to bring up Bird alot of the time. Did he come up with the term? If it is more of a historical one, then it needs to be noted as the way it reads now it gives it as a term in current use....

I don't think he coined it, references to it go back to 1800, if he did he would have had to have had an influence on the great many journals that used it in their title from a very early age. However, I am not surprised his name comes up often, it was very much his thing. At least one of my main modern sources (Coley) uses the phrase as if it were current, and gbooks has a lot of hits from books published in recent years. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, typing it in the singular seems to change what has come up. Hmmm, ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pulvermacher's main market for these devices was the very quack practitioners that Bird so detested, but it did actually work as a generator. - plural to singular subject (can be remedied by these type of devices if that is what is meant, or making it singular "The main market for this device..." (note I think the first word is repetitive and unneeded too.

Done as suggested. A clear improvement. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Snow had previously investigated arsenic poisoning when he and several fellow students were taken badly ill after a new process for preserving cadavers was introduced by Snow at the suggestion of lecturer Hunter Lane. -two snows in the one sentence, try and remove one if possible.

Done. It only needed turning into the active voice and the second Snow could become a he. Can't think how I let it pass last month. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Picture of GB medal should be moved down, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses it.
  • Moved picture down to paragraph above. Moving right to the end para causes push down into next section
• Section title "Controversy" could be better, more specific. Something like "Pulvermacher's chain" or "Endorsement controversy"
  • Done
• Prose is very good quality.
• "A bemused Bird pointed out ...". Is "bemused" from a secondary source? or the interpretation of a WP editor?
  • "Bemused" is perhaps too kind a characterisation of Bird's reply. I have changed it to "In a reply full of anger and sarcasm, Bird pointed out..." I think it only right that out readers should get a flavour of the tone of Bird's letter. This is hardly a synthesis, as a reading of the letter will surely show to anyone.
• Cite: minor formatting inconsistency: When using WP:CITEBUNDLE approach, the individual items within a single footnote should all terminate the same way: either with a period, or semicolon, or nothing. This article mostly uses nothing, but FN #19 has some items that terminate in period. My personal preference is a period for all, so readers dont have to guess where one item stops and the next starts.
  • The format used in this article is that short citations are treated as sentence fragments and do not have a terminating period (just as we do not use periods in an image caption that is just aentence fragment). The footnotes are nearly all short citations, but a few are given as full citations where the reference is not an article or book and does not appear in the bibliography. In those cases a period is used for consistency with the bibliography section.
• FNs 80, 81, 83 end in periods: others dont.
  • As above.
• Paragraph: "Bird was vain, with a tendency to self-promotion, and his driving ambition ..." that paragraph has a lot of disparate facts, and the end of the paragraph lists about five sources. Either (a) distribute the footnotes throughout the parag, or (b) parenthetically note within the footnote which source represents which fact.
  • Not done. The citation style would need to be changed throughout the entire article for consistency.
• "Bird designed and used a flexible tube stethoscope and in 1840 published the first ...". Do you have the year that he designed it?
  • Done
• Note 1 (not footnote 1) is a bit odd. Some issues (a) it is the only non-cite footnote; (b) the Journal Articles section looks odd with that footnote at the top; (c) it is indented farther to right that the following list of articles; (d) the Note is numbered (1) identically to the footnote (1) ... could use a letter instead. Probably the best resolution is to just eliminate Note 1. Many articles have "Works" sections, and they dont have a need for a footnote saying "and here are his works..".
  • Done. Seems to be a leftover from a previous organisation of the article.
• Pic caption: "Electrotherapeutic treatment to stimulate facial muscles, 1862". Who is the doctor in the photo? Need to state whether it is Bird or not.
  • I have no information on people in the picture, however, it is clearly not Bird as it is dated after his death.
• Alt text for pics: My understanding is that the alt text should describe the photo, so seeing-impaired users of the encyclopedia can grasp the contents of each picture. The Alt text now doesn't meet that need.
  • My understanding is that the main purpose of supplying alt text is to prevent the screen reader from reading out the image filename. To quote from WP:ALT: "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text." Under those circumstances, the most useful thing for a viually impaired reader is to keep the alt text to a token word or two so the screen reader immediately goes on to read the caption. A detailed description is only necessary where this is needed for an understanding of the article and is not supplied by the caption.
• Very good article over all (though the subject is a bit dry :-) Leaning to support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing, responses are above SpinningSpark 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) to 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is looking pretty good. My only concern is the "multiple sources bundled into one footnote at the end of the paragraph" issue. The purpose of the WP:INTEGRITY guideline is to help readers (and future validators) correlate the sources to the material in the article. WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE suggest that it is better to either: (a) have the cites per-sentence; Or, (b) use a single footnote at the end of the paragraph, and the multiple sources (in that single footnote) should have parenthetical comments identifying which source goes to which fact. For instance, if you have a 6 sentence paragraph, with a single footnote at the end containing six separate sources: how is the reader/validator to know which source corresponds to which sentence? What is the harm of adding small (one word per source) notes into the footnote to establish that association? --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the benefits of this system, but it is much more than a trivial amount of work to carry out. I am not able to comply at this time. If that is a deal breaker, then so be it. SpinningSpark 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are two scenarios illustrating why WP:INTEGRITY is so important: (1) imagine in the future that another editor edits Golding Bird and splits one of your paragraphs into two. How will that editor know which of the six sources in the original footnote go to each of the two new paragraphs? (2) Imagine that the same editor moves a sentence from paragraph A to (a more appropriate) paragraph B. How will that editor know which source (in the original footnote) to carry with the sentence? You, now, are in the best position to help that future editor by correlating the sources with the sentences. You have all the sources at your fingertips. If it is not done now, it will never get done. No other editor is going to fetch all the sources, read them, and update the footnotes. I'm not saying this is an obstacle to FA status, but why don't we see what other reviewers say? --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Missouri River

Nominator(s): Shann_ºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on the Missouri River article for something like half an year since the last (and third) FAC. Between then and now I have thoroughly copyedited the page, completely rewritten three sections (including the lead) and addressed all issues brought up in previous reviews, in the fear of breaking the record for most failed FACs on WP. The page has been a good article for over nine months now; overall I think it is comprehensive and well-referenced enough to deserve featured status.

Missing alt texts, broken links and dablinks have been repaired as of the day of the nomination for the convenience of the FA reviewers.

Shann_ºn 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Improvements have been made since the previous nomination, but I still feel the article does not meet the FA criteria. A sampling of concerns:

• "However, his reputation was enhanced in 1720 when the Pawnee–who had earlier been befriended by Bourgmont–massacred the Spanish Villasur expedition near present-day Columbus, Nebraska on the Missouri River and temporarily ending Spanish encroachment on French Louisiana." - source?
• "By the early 21st century, declines in populations of native species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species." - source?
• Numerous inconsistencies in reference/citation formatting, and some incomplete citations. Journal articles without weblinks need page numbers. Same with newspapers.
• Considerable sandwiching of text between tables and images - on my screen, the Navigation section is actually made quite difficult to follow because of the layout
• MOS issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc
• File:Pick-Sloan_Plan.png: source link returns error. Same for File:Yellowstone_(steamboat)_aground.jpg, File:Missouririver1.jpg, File:Nishnabotna_River_aerial.jpg
• What makes the Ezine article, which triggered the spam filter when I tried to note it here, a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed all the above comments except maybe overlinking. Could you please specify which section(s) to look at? Also, the Ezine reference (which I replaced) did not have a URL, so I can only wonder how it triggered the spam filter... Shann_ºn 22:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some reference formatting I noticed right away (in the five or so minutes I looked):

• Some citations for PPL Montana/pplmontana.org seem to be duplicated; also, use one of the two names consistently
• A fair few of the citations have inconsistent (to the assumed article standard of YYYY-MM-DD) date formatting
• If you're going to use cite doi, make sure ALL names are formatted the way cite doi does it, or copy the information into a different cite template
• Check all the ISBN numbers for consistent use of dashing.

This is by no means an exhaustive review, however. Clay^Clay_Clay 06:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, except I'm not really sure what you mean by "all names are formatted the way Cite doi does it," as far as I know this template automatically fills out the refs, and I have limited control over what it actually does. Shann_ºn 06:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is, since Cite doi formats its references a certain way, to use consistent style either all references should be formatted that way or Cite doi would not be appropriate: see Template:Cite doi#Formatting. Clay^Clay_Clay 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll use a different cite template, then, since I don't want to convert the 200-ish other citations instead :P Shann_ºn 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Finished that.Shann_ºn 01:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Still seeing MOS issues - overlinking and dash problems just in the lead. Use either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes; don't link very common terms like Europe, and don't relink terms, especially not in close proximity (like Cenozoic twice in as many paragraphs). Lots of citation issues - compare publisher formatting on FNs 5 and 6, remove stray punctuation marks as in FNs 55 and 182 among others, compare author formatting on FNs 41 and 64, need page numbers for FNs 99-101, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed all the above, except for ref 182 – Im not sure what you mean by stray punctuation mark. I looked over the citation a dozen times and all I notice is the double periods after the author name, which are caused by the template syntax. This also occurs on other featured articles including ref 84 on Columbia River. Are those supposed to exist or should I just remove the period after Lee W. ? Shann_ºn 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

request to comment on above question received no reply, Im assuming that said problems are considered fixed Shann_ºn 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think the nominator has done a great job on this massive 10,196-word article; given its size, the abovementioned problems are understandable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Please note the overlinking I fixed. I'm surprised this is still going through FAC unnoticed.
• "a population of over six hundred thousand"—personal pref for "more than". You might like it better too?
• long-standing.
• MOSDASH: "Kansas City, Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas,". And there are a few boundaries that need dashes, not hyphens.
• "A fairly undeveloped reach"—more encyclopedic might bre "relatively", if such a word is necessary.
• Yellowstone River pic: why 160px? It was tiny. I've boosted to 240px. Quite a few others would be improved by boosting (personal pref.).
• Looks very well-written to me. Tony (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dashes fixed, wow, there were quite a few that I missed on the last run through. I also tweaked the words you mentioned above. Shann_ºn 02:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• tentative Support Comments WRT prose. I think we're mostly there - the prose looks good now. There might be a few redundant words here and there but no-deal-breakers are left. This is conditional on those who are more familiar with the river happy with factual weighting etc. so I'll keep and eye on the page- beginning a read-through now. I'll jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Missouri's headwaters forks also extend significantly farther upstream... - grammar

It is unclear exactly how far beyond the Platte his expedition actually traveled up the Missouri. Bourgmont described the blond-haired Mandans in his journals, so it is likely that he reached as far as their villages in present-day North Dakota - the bit immediately preceding this segment tells us they're going along the Missouri River, in which case, the first sentence is largely redundant, and can be reworded " It is unclear exactly how far past this point they travelled, though Bourgmont described the blond-haired Mandans in his journals, so it is likely that he reached as far as their villages in present-day North Dakota"

In 1801, the Spanish restored the Americans the rights to use the Mississippi and New Orleans - "restored to the Americans"?

Looking promising though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the Notes and the bottom main-text section.

• "which is just over one-half of the length of the Missouri."
• "is maintained by various federal and state government agencies"—you could lose one word.
• "all the land within the preserve is open to hiking and camping"—can "the" be removed? I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect it can.
• "The river also flows through or past many National Historic Landmarks,"—lose "also" (note that two "alsos" do appear to be necessary in this section).
• "Parts of the river itself are also designated for recreational or preservational use."—unsure "also" is doing anything useful. Nor here: "The preserve also includes a wide variety of"
• Personal pref. only: you might consider "about" rather than the ungainly "approximately". Tony (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Made corrections to all the above (I hope). Shann_ºn 06:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO...not going to section off this, but want to add a few comments as this goes through review...I'll add comments as I can over the next few days to a week...

• In Course section....end of second paragraph, "the Milk River enters from the left"...perhaps better if we say from the "north"...[15]...Maybe double check the direction tributary rivers and streams enter...via topoquest. Some confusion when we're talking about stream flow..I think it should all emphasize whether tributaries flow into the Missouri from the north, south, east or west, rather than left or right...again, Course section, third paragraph, last sentence: "While it continues south, eventually reaching Oahe Dam in South Dakota, the Grand, Moreau and Cheyenne Rivers all join the Missouri from the right"...the Missouri itself is flowing south, but what direction are these other rivers flowing into it from...
  • Changed the left/right pile to N-S-E-W. I'll look over the article for more.. Shann_ºn 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in at this late date and only on this single issue, which caught my eye. Shannon had it right originally. The convention for course descriptions is to use left and right heading downstream rather than to attempt compass descriptions. It's probably helpful to link to Wiktionary's left and right on first use. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it's the convention... but IMO it actually works better, I think, for this article. I don't know why. Would you think changing them back is a good idea or leaving it as is? Shann_ºn 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't change them back on my account. Leave as is. My real concern was that someone might leap from this to changing the left-rights in all the course descriptions in the encyclopedia. Yow! Finetooth (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Maps indicate the Gallatin flows into the Missouri only one mile after the Jefferson and Madison Rivers merge at Three Forks, Montana...U.S. Geological Survey map via Topoquest...the Madison is at lower left coming in from the west, the Jefferson is flowing in from the south and those two river merge right above the 4044 elevation point at lower left...and before the canyon, the Gallatin meets the Missouri as it flows from the south...[16]
• First sentence in Course section..."From the Rocky Mountains of Montana and Wyoming, three streams rise to form the headwaters of the Missouri River."...this seems confusing...the three main rivers that all meet to form the Missouri are the Madison, Jefferson and Gallatin...also, though it doesn't specify the mountains, this source says the headwaters are at 11,000 feet (3,400 m) [17]
  • A lot of the rivers tributaries originate above 11,000 feet... like the Middle Fork of the South Platte River which rises at something like 13,000 feet on Mt Democrat in Colorado. And some of the tributaries of the Wind/Bighorn rivers too, well above eleven thousand feet. Though Gallatin Lake is at around 9000 feet, and Madison Lake is well below at some 8,300 feet. Shann_ºn 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Source lists Mount Jefferson (Bitterroot Range) as the headwater source for the river...[18]

• • I concur with Mongo on this and suggest that the source above that he cites along with the Montana river sources contained in the article be used to support the discussion of the source of the Missouri. The use of topo maps sources is problematic because usually (as is the case here) the actual content is an interpretation of what one editor thinks the topomap is illustrating. For example, the topo doesn't actually say that Bower spring is the source of the Missouri, that's an interpretation of the map data. Even seasoned editors on geographic articles like Mongo can make a mistake interpreting map data. (Being familar with the points of a compass it would be physically impossible short of the contruction of a huge aquaduct for the Madison to enter the Missouri headwaters from the West and the Jefferson from the South when the entire length of the Jefferson is west of the Madison) On the other hand, the source and sources within that Mongo cites, actually do discuss this in detail. Another point I'd like to make is that the three forks of the Missouri (regardless of which one is the farthest from the mouth) ought to be discussed with equal weight about their origin. ie. The Madison flows from Madison Lake on the Madison plateau in YNP, the Gallatin flows from Gallatin Lake in the Gallatin range in YNP and the Jefferson flows from the Centennials. Although the Gibbon is confluence source of the Madison, it is just another tributary. I think the most interesting fact about the headwaters of the Missouri is the the three forks actually form in many different ranges from the Beaverhead mountains to the West, East to the Gallatin Range.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm looking around for some books to cite on the orgination, but what is in the article seems accurate enough...though we may know more, we can only add what we can cite of course. Your feedback is very much appreciated.--MONGO 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Browers Spring is located on Mount Jefferson, so IMO it's either to mention the spring or the mountain, since its referring to roughly the same location. Though I'd say the spring is probably the more well-known of the two, and has traditionally been considered as the Missouri's source as far as I know... Shann_ºn 06:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Those are valid points...I suggest we just stick with the Bowers Spring one...--MONGO 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I edited the first paragraph of course to mention the furthest origins of each of the headwaters (Madison and Gallatin Lakes etc.) Shann_ºn 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Though not critical in itself, but we may want to mention that in addition to electrical generation from the dams, the Missouri River also has 3 nuclear power plants adjacent to it's course...I might write it as: Three nuclear power generating facilities are located adjacent to the Missouri River, including the Callaway Nuclear Generating Station in Missouri as well as the Cooper Nuclear Station and Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station, which are both in Nebraska.
  • I'd agree, except not sure what section. I would have put it in the Dams section but... that's about dams. Shann_ºn 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Me neither...again, it's not that critical.--MONGO 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support and kudos to Shannon1 for sheparding this expansive article to this level.--MONGO 07:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I continue to support this article. It is better than it was at FAC3 when I supported. I continue to think that this article is being held to a higher standard than it should because the majority of the current FA rivers are really streams and creeks. Of the 10 current river FAs (Bull Run River (Oregon), Chetco River, Columbia River, Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Jordan River (Utah), Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), River Parrett, Rogue River (Oregon), St. Johns River, and Willamette River), 6 are steams and creeks less than 60 miles in length, while 9 are 310 miles or less. In addition, FA has 8 actual creeks less than 25 miles (Aliso Creek (Orange County), Balch Creek, Big Butte Creek, Fanno Creek, Larrys Creek, Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), Tryon Creek, White Deer Hole Creek). This article compares favorably to the Columbia (1243 miles).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments technical things...

• Are you sure all of those pre-collapsed tables are good per WP:COLLAPSE?
• In the Major tributaries table, you have a blank cell for the purposes of having both a rowspan and sortability. There are examples of how to avoid this, see List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers for instance. I'm not keen at all on the current solution.
• Is there a purpose for the coloured cells or is it simply for visual pleasure?
• Row and col scopes (per MOS:DTT) should be used to enable screen-readers to make best use of these tables.
• In the Dams table, what is the purpose of the odd cell being coloured?
• When sorting this table, the "total" row moves too, this should be locked in place at the bottom (have a look at the code here relating to class="sortbottom").
• Ref 72 needs a space after its pp.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed all the tables as you suggested, it looks a lot cleaner now. Yes, the colored table cells are just for readability purposes because some readers might get lost in the wall of figures therein (like I sometimes do). I don't know if the tables should be collapsed or not. The reason I collapsed them was because they make the article look too cluttered if they werent. Shann_ºn 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Prosperity theology

Nominator(s): ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)}, Mark Arsten 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Two editors and I have been editing and improving this article since the summer. It achieved Good Article status on 21 December and was Peer Reviewed on 29 December; it has been under constant improvement throughout. It has now reached a stage where we believe the article covers everything relevant in appropriate depth. It has undergone a few copyedits for style, neutrality and the like (as well as regular ongoing improvements). The article is now comprehensive in coverage; written neutrally, with numerous reliable sources; and written to a good standard. We now believe that it is ready for Featured Article status. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Accedie for her help copyediting, User:Cerebellum for the Good Article review, and User:Brianboulton for the peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• SupportComments Nicely written, and an interesting subject. I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them.

"three of the four largest churches". Is that church as in denomination or congregation?

There is a lot of criticism from other branches of Christianity, but not much rebuttal or other response. Surely some theologians have spoken for them? Also as this is now a multinational movement it would be interesting to get say a Buddhist response in Korea.

I was surprised that the Christian responses quoted have not focussed on Jesus clearing the money changers out of the temple or his teachings about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.

Regards ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your edits look good to me. I am really bad with capitalization :( I made the first change you suggested, I'll look around for information about the other two. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I have added a short section on the influence of prosperity theology in South Korea, though that is still from a Christian perspective; I shall look out for comments from other beliefs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a bit of a theological rebuttal, I hope it works there. I didn't find much in the way for criticism from Korea or non-Christian criticisms. I e-mailed a Korean friend of mine about it though, so they might know of something. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes, especially the Korean bit. I'm still just a tad concerned about balance, though I appreciate that is very different in such a context. Any established reliable source on theology is likely to be dismissive of this sort of thing, and I'm consciously restraining myself from asking for success stories. But on the narrow part of the criteria that I check I think it is ready. BTW A lead image other than the default Christian one might be in order, and if MOS doesn't deprecate see also sections I'd be tempted by Plutus ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot for your support and comments. I'll try to take another look at the things you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Re the above, there is also the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 6:19–21; "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust duth corrupt ... for where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also". I reviewed this article at peer review, and will post further comments here shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, one of the main sources we were using mentioned that verse, so I put it in. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Well thought out. I've made what I hope are a few stylistic improvements. Substantively I think it's a fine article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look, your edits look great to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
• Lindberg Carter or Carter Lindberg? van or Van Biema? Time or TIME or Time Magazine? Check for naming consistency
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• FN 36: are you missing a name here?
• Check italicization in footnotes
• FN 51: page(s)?
• Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated
• What is OCMS? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I should have noticed those before. Ok, I think I have gotten most of them, we still have to hyphenate the ISBNs and add page numbers for #51. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Did those last two, hope I formatted the paper's references correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: A thought-provoking article which will be a credit to TFA in due course. I gave a detailed peer review, hence my present comments are mainly fairly minor prose quibbles:-

• Each of the four lead paragraphs begins "Prosperity theology..." You need to find ways of varying this phrasing. OK for the first and fourth, say, but change the beginnings of the other two.
• Recommend add the parenthetical words "(reconciliation with God)" after the first mention of "atonement"
• Theology section, fourth line: replace possibly ambiguous "teaching that" with "and teaches that"
• Same section, third paragraph: replace awkward "with other teachers portraying..." with "while other teachers portray..."
• You have introduced Copeland and Dollar without saying who thy are. One can find this information via the links, but that means leaving the article. A very brief description, such as "televangelist" or "Word of Fath teacher" would suffice. The principle should be applied to other first mentions in the text, e.g. T.D. Jakes in the "Practices" subsection
• Recent US history: "As of 2006" sounds strange when we are in 2012. Not sure how to reword this, but perhaps: "By 2006, three of the four largest congregations in the United States had taught prosperity theology", (or possibly "were teaching")?
• Author of The prayer of Jabez?
• Theological criticism: I am confused by this sentence: "In Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, R. Kent Hughes notes that some rabbis taught that material blessings were a sign of God's favor, citing Jesus' statement in Mark 10:25 that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (KJV) as evidence to oppose such thinking.[42] I can only make sense of this if a full stop follows "a sign of God's favor", then "He cites Jesus' statement in Mark..." etc
• "criticizing John Avanzini's teaching → " and criticizies John Avanzini's teaching". Later in the sentence: "...a misrepresentation and noting" becomes "a misrepresentation, noting..."
• "Jones criticizes the doctrine's view of faith as a spiritual force..." I find that a little confusing. The essence of prosperity theology is surely its belief that faith confers material advantages.
• What is "negative confession"?
• Socioeconomic analysis: I recommend you don't use the exclusively American term "exurb", when "commuter town" would be understood by all, not just American readers.
• Yung Hwa introduced without explanation or link

I will be happy to support when these cleared up. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I have done everything except for clarifying negative confession, which I will do later this evening/tomorrow. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I given a basic clarification of negative confession. If you think further explanation or an example is needed, let me know and I can do so later. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with your responses and have now registered my support. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Great, thanks for all your help on this. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the lead.

• Trying to think of synonyms to avoid the jingle here: "part of the path". I can't.
• "the removal of sickness and poverty"—is there a better word than "removal"?
• "Some prosperity churches also teach about financial responsibility, though some journalists and academics have"—can the doubling up of "some" be avoided?
• critics ... criticized. It's OK, but if there's a substitute for one, I'd use it.
• Logic problem in the timing and the different treatment of the middle class and the poor: "Prosperity theology has drawn followers from the American middle class and has become popular among the poor." Both are in the "gradual" past tense, but one involves popularity, and one has drawn followers. Why are the two social classes treated with different wording? (We assume the poor are American, too.)

It's pretty well-written, although I'm sure I'd nit-pick in the rest. Tony (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment! I took a stab at revising problematic parts of the lead, hope my edits helped. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Parable of talents.jpg needs a US PD tag to explain why it is PD in the US. Could also do with the summary being adapted to {{Information}}. The caption could be rewritten as "The parable of the talents (as depicted in a 1712 woodcut) is often cited in support of prosperity theology." to meet MOS:CAPTION in terms of succinctness and full stops/periods.
• File:Yoido Full Gospel Church.jpg needs a summary using {{Information}}.
• File:Paul arrested.jpg needs a US PD tag. Also, how do you know that the image was created in the early 1900s?

An interesting topic, although not an idea I really agree with. —Andrew_stalk 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Alright, I did the first two. I couldn't find evidence for the date of the third so I removed it. The website it was taken from claimed it was public domain, but didn't give any evidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on images —Andrew_stalk 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore

• "J. Matthew Wilson of Southern Methodist University compares the movement to Black liberation theology due to its focus on uplifting oppressed groups..." — the adjectival "due to" should be replaced with the adverbial "owing to", as its antecedent is another verb than "to be" ("compare").
• "...the 19th century belief that the United States was entitled to the West." — "19th-century" should be hyphenated as it is a compound adjective.
• Re: sources: Please don't mix cite and citation templates as they generate dissimilar punctuation (see Clifton 2009). Eisfbnore ^talk 14:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I had almost forgotten this was open, no comments for two weeks! Alright, I fixed the two prose gaffs and the Cite book template. It's ok that we use Cite News in the References section though, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the fixes. Ref 48 uses a citation template, so you might want to change that (perhaps cite journal?). --Eisfbnore ^talk 14:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I think I've gotten rid of all the "Citation" templates in the References section and the "Cite X" templates in the Bibliography. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, very well written article, sources etc. seem fine. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note: apparently a sockpuppet of a banned user:[19]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, glad to see you again. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note -- Like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, please. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks - I did spotchecks on the online sources (numbers based on this revision). I checked 2a, 2b, 5a, 2c, 5b, 2d, 10a, 2e, 10c, 5e, 5f, 10d, 10e, 5g, 36a, 36b, 10f, 5j, 41, 43, 48b, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 10g, 10i, 5k, 72, 75, 5i, and all were accurate and did not have close paraphrasing. The following are also accurate and not close paraphrasing, but I do have a few comments:

• 10b, Bowler is/was a student at Duke. I read the article thinking she was faculty. I’d get rid of the Duke part.
  • Was a student, but is now faculty--rephrased for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 40, move citation to end of sentence
  • Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 5h, i - reference Warren too for completeness
  • Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 48a, this reference could be used in a few more of the previous sentence with this source
  • I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but I added inline citations for the quoted part and his criticism of Avanzini. Did this fix your concerns? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Most of the article has almost every sentence cited. This is a section that you use one reference for multiple sentences. I'm just saying you could use the ref in these sentence too, but I'm not sure what is the expected way to do it. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, I think it's generally Ok to use one ref for multiple sentences in that passage since there's nothing unduly controversial and no direct quotes in them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I figured it was OK, but I was just pointing out the inconsistency. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 54, I read this to be the disciples also suffered (true), but the source says the disciples expected suffering. Please make this clear.
  • I removed the offending part of the sentence, I don't think it was much of a loss. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 55, page 8 not 7, then linked with current ref 56 (page 8)
  • I think I fixed the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you should still use a ref at the end of the sentence instead of taking it out. The ref should be to page 8. Just note that page 8 is already been used in the article (by the ref 56 when I first read the article - I think the one from the next sentence). Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 10h, the manifest destiny part is correctly cited, but the ref doesn’t describe what manifest destiny was pertaining to West. Move the ref to after manifest destiny. I don't think the last part is controversial and needs a reference.
  • Done. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• 2f, Wouldn’t it be better to cite Harris directly, since the text of 2f cites “(Harris, 1981: 141)”?
  • Cited him directly. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I assumed a typo and changed p 41 to p 141 based on source 2. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, but in my defense, it was getting pretty late by then. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I read, I would not anticipate any of the off-line sources would have accuracy or close paraphrasing issues. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One more question/observation. Why did you break up the Assemblies of God source into separate citations that are page-specific (refs 51–55, 75) but you did not do the same thing for source #2? I don't know if it's incorrect, but it is inconsistent. It was easier to spotcheck the Assemblies of God refs, but I don't know if I would generalize that into saying that every reference should be page-specific. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made the references to that source page specific. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize you had done this. I formatted them further. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on Spotchecks — All my comments and trivial pseudo-questions were addressed. This was an interesting read and the sources look good to me. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Faryl

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Sunday, I nominated Faryl Smith for featured status, and today, I bring you her debut album. An archetypal classical-crossover recording, it broke records for its high number of sales and was nominated for a top award, but had no great success outside of the UK. The classical community liked it, even though I'd imagine a lot of them didn't want to like it due to Smith's appearance on Britain's Got Talent. I feel that the article is well-written and referenced, and comprehensively covers all details of the album. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; made one fix. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Jim No serious problems, a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Repetition of "features" in para 1, can this be tweaked

• Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Smith meeting with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — reads as if this was was organised as part of the promotion, which seems unlikely, although it obviously helped. Needs rephrasing

• Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• and the album sold 29,200 copies in the first week — avoid repetition, perhaps and 29,200 copies in the first full week

• Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Though generally critical of move — Is there a word missing?

• Though generally critical of the move. Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• because obviously, it's a big deal for me — The punctuation is clearly wrong. This may be how the source put it, but although you can't change the words of an oral statement, it seems reasonable to correct erroneous punctuation by the reporter or subeditor.

• Fair. Added a comma. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• out of a possible 5 stars — should be possible to avoid repeating this

• Rephrased slightly- I think it reads better, but there is still some repetition. What do you think? J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support with one more comment I'm happy with most of the changes, but I made this edit to remove the newly introduced repetition of "promotion", and to fix my pet hate of unlinked-hyphen-bluelink. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No objection, thanks for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review The only image has an appropriate non-free use rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I appreciate the time you've taken. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks and the disclaimer that I've still done no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some repeated wikilinks, the most egregious of which is The Blue Danube twice in as many sentences. Also, be consistent in whether it's The Blue Danube or "The Blue Danube" or The Blue Danube
  • Tweaked. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "60 piece orchestra" -> "60-piece orchestra"
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Further, he was critical of some of the more predictable song choices; "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", for example" - can this be worded differently?
  • "Further, he was critical of the inclusion of "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", considering them to be overly predictable song choices." J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Davis also awarded the album 3 out of five" - either spell out both or keep both as numbers
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• What's an early listening chart? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm not sure, and I can't find any mention of it on Amazon. I could perhaps change it to the slightly less interesting fact about it being 295th on the bestsellers chart? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Given that GHits for that term are almost exclusively the article, this review and copies thereof, I wonder whether it might be "easy listening"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I thought the same thing- Amazon does list the album as "easy listening"... Would you object to me "correcting" it? Or would that venture into original research? J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You might add an explanatory footnote if you're worried about OR, but I think it'd be fine to just correct it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Added a hidden comment. Thanks again for your thoughts, I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks: A thorough article which is very readable and clear. Seems comprehensive, but I'm afraid I know very little about the album or Miss Smith! Just a few picky points, and feel free to argue with any of them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The album's promotion included numerous television and radio appearances": Reads as if the album made appearances; maybe better to say "As part of the album's promotion, Smith made numerous television and radio appearances, and around this time met…"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "and a total of 29,200 copies in the first week, which is higher than any other debut album of a classical singer" Redundancy?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very minor, but promotion/promotional is used three times in the lead which jars very, very slightly.
• "Despite the fact she was at one point the favourite to win…" A little cumbersome? Maybe "Although favourite to win, …" (I think the source justifies the slight change in emphasis)
  • "Although favourite to win" is a little strong, I feel. It's not quite like she was going into the final with everyone expecting her to win; more that, at one point, she was the one the bookies liked the best. If you think my wording doesn't accord with the source, I can add a couple more references. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I think the source supports either wording and I'm happy for it to stay like this. My main objection was that the phrase was a little clunky, but not enough to be a big problem. One other possibility I could see would be to remove "Despite the fact" to make it flow marginally better, but happy to go with your judgement either way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "and after the show she rejected offers": Again a little clunky. What about "and later rejected"?
  • Rephrased slightly. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "during Smith's Christmas holiday": Presumably holiday from school rather than a "getaway"? Is this important enough to include?
  • It provides an idea of timescale, as well as the stress that it was not interfering with her school life. This is something that is often stressed with artists like this. I remember a while ago there was controversy about teen singers missing school, and so record companies now need to be much more careful. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "on the third of January" Why not "on 3 January"?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "with performances at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and appearances at the debut of Oliver!.": Maybe specify "performances by Smith". Also the comment about "the debut of Oliver!" is a little strange as Oliver obviously did not come out in 2009!
  • Done, clarified the Olver! thing. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Contrary to what was said on the third series of Britain's Got Talent, Smith had no plans for a concert tour in 2009; she was quoted as saying that "I'm too young and don't think I would be able to do a tour on my own"": Not sure why we need to have a "contrary to" thing happening here as the reader probably will not realise what was said on the series. I would consider cutting the start of the sentence and beginning "Smith had no plans…"
  • That appearance on BGT was probably the biggest she had made at that stage beyond her original BGT appearances. I'll reword slightly, as you're right that the average reader will not know what was said, but I do think the mention needs to stay. Also an interesting aside about how little BGT apparently cared- in some ways, I'm amazed they took her when she didn't sign with Syco. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "On 23 May 2009, after the US release, Faryl peaked at 31 on Top Heatseekers Albums chart, and at six on the Classical Albums chart, remaining in the charts for one and 17 weeks respectively": The date confuses me slightly here. Was the album released on that date or did it peak on that date? If the latter, maybe lose the date entirely? Also, maybe make it clear here that this now refers to the US charts? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rephrased slightly. Thanks very much for your comments and time. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the prose yet; there are too many clunky constructions like "it was reported by The Sun that" (why not "The Sun reported that"?) and "Smith described the song by saying that". Ucucha (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Both sentences have now been reworded. I hope dealing with Sasata's niggles has gone some way to deal with your concerns. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Prose niggles by Sasata (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Faryl became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "entered the charts at number 6, rising to number 4" normally, these numbers would be spelled out per MoS, but perhaps there's an album article-specific rule that contravenes this?
  • Can't find it explicitly. I think it would be covered by WP:ORDINAL- "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 within three hours after the announcement." Both the policy on record charts and the MOS note numbers in the same way I have- see WP:CHARTTRAJ and MOS:HASH. As I say, I can't find it explicitly, but I think my way is accepted, and reflective of current practice. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• is there a link for "classical chart"?
  • Just redirects Billboard charts. I can throw the link in if you like? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "As one of the ten best selling classical albums" -> best-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• link for "album of the year"?
  • There's no article on the actual award- I could redlink? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "During the show, she performed "Ave Maria" and a cover of Sarah McLachlan's "Angel",[2] as well as receiving singing lessons from Yvie Burnett." receiving -> received; the second half doesn't quite make sense to me--she had singing lessons during the show?
  • Adjusted. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• might want to use a few words to describe The Blue Danube
  • Reworked. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "On 23 February, it was reported by The Sun" -> "On 23 February, The Sun reported"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The mix up received attention" I think, when used in this way, mix-up needs a hyphen (correct me if I'm wrong)
  • Either works, I think, your way is better. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the cover photo was modified ... due to her "gappy teeth"" -> I think (again, not 100% positive) that this should be "owing to"
  • Interchangable it current English, it would seem- see this and this. Interesting issue. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "More promotional appearances in the weeks leading up to the release of Faryl included appearances" reword to avoid repetition of "appearances"
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "during her summer holidays in order to again promote" in order to -> to
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "before going back into the recording studio later in the year" going back into -> returning to
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• link easy listening chart
  • The article is on the Billboard chart, I'm talking about the Amazon chart. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "was the top selling opera album" top-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• sometimes UK and US are spelled out in full; not sure if there's some consistent application that I'm missing
  • All abbreviated per MOS. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Faryl officially entered the charts at number six," which chart? UK Albums?
  • Yes, fixed. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate you taking the time. The MoS is labyrinthine... J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• no problem, here's a few more: Sasata (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The album was recorded during December 2008 and January 2009 and features the track "River of Light", a song set to The Blue Danube, for which a promotional music video was recorded." needs tweaking; it currently reads as if a music video was made for the Blue Danube
  • Reworked slightly. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Smith subsequently embarked on a promotional tour of the US…" in the US, unless she was promoting the US of A
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think it would be useful to state explicitly somewhere how old she was when she recorded or released this album, or in the background section, how old she was in her first BGT competition
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• maybe link pressing and recording studio
  • Done the former, the latter seems a little common. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "you can practically hear Katherine Jenkins weep as Faryl flawlessly executes Amazing Grace" is this an inside joke? … who is Katherine Jenkins?
  • Katherine Jenkins is a Welsh singer to whom Smith can very easily be compared- she's probably the most popular mezzo-soprano working in the UK today. She's also something of a mentor to Smith, and signed on the same label. The reference would be clear to anyone reading the review, but I appreciate that the same doesn't hold with the article- do you think it needs clarifying? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • As as outsider, I'm still left wondering if she would have been weeping because she thought the performance was immaculate and beautiful, or because she was in anguish that another younger singer performed the piece even better than she did? Maybe I'm jaded... Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I interpretted it as the latter. It's a real "watch out Jenkins, there's a new kid on the block" sort of line. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• imho, there's a couple too many usages of impress/impressive in the first paragraph of "Reception"
  • Scratched two. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note -- Ucacha and Sasata, do the recent changes/responses satisfy your prose concerns? I found a couple of inconsistencies in chart number formatting that I corrected. Re. spotchecks, I saw that Milburn's previous FAC had one and Sasata appears to have checked some sources here, so I have no quibbles on that front. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hadn't actually performed a spot check, but since one was requested on FAC talk, I checked about a dozen citations, and found no problems with close-paraphrasing or otherwise. One statement fails verification (I suspect the citation got mixed up):
• the external link in ref #27 (Pahphides 2009) redirects to the Times current front page

• Added an archive url. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• fails verification: "…while Birchmeier was slightly more positive, awarding Faryl 3.5 out of 5."[5]

• Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm otherwise happy with the prose and MoS compliance, and willing to support, 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4 (once the above gets fixed). Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, and thanks again for your careful review. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on accessibility: The image in the infobox lacks any alternate text (no alt text; no caption) and would therefore be invisible to anyone using a screen reader, other than a link to the image description page. WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images is the relevant guideline and WP:Alternative text for images gives good advice on implementation. The template {{tracklist}} unfortunately produces a table which lacks scope attributes and also does not identify row headers, which results in a limitation on the way many screen readers are able to navigate the table. If that template is to be used for articles that showcase Wikipedia's best work, then it really would benefit by being updated to take account of the guidelines at WP:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Data tables. I understand that accessibility issues represent an additional "hurdle" that many editors may not yet be comfortable with, but we should be aiming towards raising the standards of our articles to be the best that they can be. The more editors who are aware of the difficulties that can be caused to disabled visitors, the better an experience we can offer to them. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mount Meager

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should be ready for FAC now. I have spent months of research on Mount Meager to recreate the article then I did some copyediting for clarification. I am aware there are terms in the article that make it a little technical to read like rock types (e.g. dacite, rhyodacite, andesite, rhyolite, breccia) and other volcanological terminology, but as far as I am aware of they are appropiate for FA volcano articles. Nevertheless, they are supported by helpful links. Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books

Done. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 37: last name?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 20: given that Trafford is a print-on-demand service, what are the qualifications of this author?

Just to get away from this I have replaced the book source with a better one. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 22: typo in title

The source that had the typo in title has been replaced with another source. Volcanoguy 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check formatting of newspaper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Switched to {{cite news}}. Volcanoguy 05:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support: Spot check looks good, but I'll made a full review sometime later. Nice to see you around Tusk ;) ResMar 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by ResMar

General

• Overreferencing, although I'm a bit more ambivalent about this after working with Piotrus a bit.

It is probably alright. There are no redundant sources or repeated sourcing in the article. Volcanoguy 06:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• This includes mounds of viscous lava, columns of volcanic rock and overlapping piles of lava flows. This seems to take laymen's terms too far; I think people can extrapolate what a lava plug and a lava dome is.

I agree. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well change it to the tech terms, then =) ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• creating a geological formation in the Lillooet River valley. What geological formation?

I have removed this from the introduction because I noticed it is not mentioned in the article. It's nothing important anyway. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Geography and geology

• The interface between... I don't think interface is the right word.
• similar to a giant spring Not a fan of the analogy.

These two phrases have already made it through other FA volcano articles. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As for your spring analogy statement, see WP:IJDLI. The spring analogy is used in the given source, as well as the term interface. From doing a Wikipedia search for subduction interface there are lots of articles that use the term. Although subduction interface is not used in the article that is what is being discussed in the Regional setting section. Volcanoguy 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh...fine, I'll let it slide. ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• ...is a long-lived feature...relatively old... Repetition.

I really don't find that redundant. Long-lived is the same as persistent and relatively old is comparatively old. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed it a bit to avoid awkwardness. ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The comparisons of ages of other volcanoes should be rephrased, I'm not sure what's going on there...

I have added old at the end of the volcano ages to make it more obvious what it is being discussed. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mount Meager itself... A Mount Meager that is part of Mount Meager? You should be clearer with the differenciation, in my opinion.

Changed to Mount Meager proper. There is the Mount Meager massif (what the article is about) and a subsidiary peak named Mount Meager. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just replaced "complex volcano" with "volcanic massif" in the introduction and "Mount Meager volcanic complex" to "Mount Meager massif" in the infobox caption for more clarification. The Mount Meager subsidiary peak is now completely described as Mount Meager proper to distinguish it from the Mount Meager massif. Also worthy to note the two Meagers are mentioned together in the infobox caption so that should show the difference between the two of them. Volcanoguy 07:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• by forcing moisture-laden air off the ocean... "Forcing" isn't a very descriptive term for what's going on; you should explain the process in more detail.

So what would be a more proper term to discribe this? I am not an expert in how the process takes place. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this the same thing as above. Volcanoguy 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wet air evaporates off the sea, but squeezing over the mountains forces it to lose the precipitation to get over, which comes down as rain. I've fixed it. ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Human history

• as labelled on the 1923 British Columbia map 2D What is this map, exactly?

No idea. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised. Volcanoguy 08:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• a letter From who to who?

No idea. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From BC Geographical Names. Volcanoguy 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The deposit was first hired... Never seen "hired" used this way before :s

Changed to "held". Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• who died in the late 1970s When he died isn't terribly relevant; you'd be better of saying that he worked the area in the early 1970s.

Deleted. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Volcanic history

• normally layered Normally?

Deleted. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• a massive lava dome or volcanic plug By "or" do you mean that it's both a dome and a plug, or that it's uncertain which it is?

It means an uncertainty. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, fine. ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Threats and preparedness

• it is, overall, a dangerous volcano I imagine so! Perhaps "makes it a dangerous threat in case of an eruption".

Reworded to "it is a major volcanic hazard". Volcanoguy 09:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lot of repetition of "threatened."

"Threatened" is only mentioned three times in the entire article: twice in the "Threats and preparedness" section and once in the introduction. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean that in that specific section it was said two times in as many sentences. ResMar 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Twice is not lots. Volcanoguy 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

But still too much =-) ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the second "threatened" with "is also at risk by the volcano". Volcanoguy 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• is geologically an area of intense volcanic activity Perhaps "Canada is nonetheless an area..." would be better

Done. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• relief efforts could be orchestrated... "Could"?

Changed to "relief efforts would probably be orchestrated". Volcanoguy 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• as of 2003... Can we have an update.

No updates avaliable. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Really none? ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not surprised though given the lack of monitoring at Canadian volcanoes. Volcanoguy 03:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Chalk one up for "boring piles of rock" I suppose. ResMar 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Massive overcitation in the table; you use citation 16 in all of them, why not just note it once in the table header?

I did not see anything in WP:CS that says you can't use several citations in a table. It just mentions in texts because it can bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. This isn't the case here because the table citations are separately arranged in the edit window text. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about technical yabber-jabber, I'm saying that there's no point in have 20 of the same reference repeated over and over and over again. If you use the same citation again and again, just place it in the references !box, and so leave it. ResMar 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, but I kept the 2010 landslide source in the table. Volcanoguy 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is Syn-eruptive?

Means the landslide and eruption occurred at the same time. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll remember it for the future, but perhaps it would be better to change it to something simpler? ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is quite obvious what it means if you read the information before the table. It is mentioned in the "Volcanic history" section that an eruption occurred about 2,400 years ago and the "Syn-" bit is between the eruption precursor landslide (about 2,600 years ago) and the post-eruption landslide (about 2,400 years ago). If it's between a pre-eruption landslide and a post-eruption landslide then everything between those two landslides was during the eruption. Volcanoguy 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support comments - on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. reading through - queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a 1,094 km (680 mi) long fault zone running 80 km (50 mi) off the Pacific Northwest from Northern California to southwestern British Columbia. - should that be " Pacific Northwest coast"?

No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Para 2 of Regional setting - the word "trench" is repeated in 3 successive sentences. Any way this could be reworded to lose one (without sacrificing meaning) would improve prose.

I have changed the second "trench" to "this large depression". Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are fewer than expected --> " However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are less common/rarer than expected"? (sounds funny as is)

Done. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though very few eruptions in Canada have been witnessed by people, Canada is nonetheless an area of intense volcanic activity. - 2 canadas in the one sentence. could the second be "the region"?

Changed. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

These signs generally occur well in advance of a potential eruption, - how far in advance? weeks/months/years/days......

That depends. According to the Geological Survey of Canada, warnings can be weeks, months or years long, so I have added that to the sentence. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, its' the sort of thing laypeople are keen on knowing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything else people do there? popular summer hiking or winter skiiing?

No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise prose and comprehensiveness look pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

I have always had problems with this. Which captions should not have periods? To me a sentence is a statement with a period, so I have no idea what captions are you referring to. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Think I've got these either changed to sentences with periods, or frags w/o. The Interior (Talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hot spring caption needs editing for prose

Revised. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Graph is illegible at this size - can it be made larger?

Increased graph size. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Garibaldi_Volcanic_Belt-en.svg: second source link returns 404 error

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Eruptive_history_of_the_Mount_Meager_Volcanic_Complex.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Page number added. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment re: 1b. Anything useful to add from these sources? Sasata (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Title: Volcanology of the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager volcanic complex, British Columbia, Canada: implications for hazards from eruptions in topographically complex terrain

Author(s): Hickson CJ; Russell JK; Stasiuk MV

Source: Bulletin of Volcanology Volume: 60 Issue: 7 Pages: 489-507 DOI: 10.1007/s004450050247 Published: APR 1999

Title: Welded block and ash flow deposits from Mount Meager, British Columbia, Canada

Author(s): Michol K. A.; Russell J. K.; Andrews G. D. M.

Source: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research Volume: 169 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 121-144 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.08.010 Published: FEB 10 2008

Title: Impact of a Quaternary volcano on Holocene sedimentation in Lillooet River Valley, British Columbia

Author(s): Friele PA; Clague JJ; Simpson K; et al.

Source: SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY Volume: 176 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 305-322 DOI: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.01.011 Published: MAY 16 2005

Title: Large Holocene landslides from Pylon Peak, southwestern British Columbia

Author(s): Friele PA; Clague JJ

Source: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES Volume: 41 Issue: 2 Pages: 165-182 DOI: 10.1139/E03-089 Published: FEB 2004

PS:Volcanoguy, if you can't access them, a few of us have access at different universities and can probably help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware of, the Volcanology of the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager volcanic complex, British Columbia, Canada journal dosen't have lots of important information about the actual event. It's mostly just about the deposition of the eruptive products and stratigraphy. Nevertheless, all of the events the eruption produced (e.g. pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic fall, collapsing of lava flows, outburst flood) is within the article. Same thing for the second source, but it discusses the deposition of block and ash flows that occurred during the same eruption. Nothing really important to note in the Impact of a Quaternary volcano on Holocene sedimentation in Lillooet River Valley, British Columbia journal other than the fact that Meager has been the source several large landslides in the past 10,000 years and are potential hazards to inhabited areas in the Lillooet River valley (which is already discussed in the article). As for the Pylon Peak source, landslides are a major hazard at Meager (and are discussed in the Threats and preparedness section), but the largest events are not unique and don't need a separate section about them. They are, however, in the landslide table. I have seen and read all of these sources before I nominated and rewrote/expanded this article. Volcanoguy 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Lead: "... it could again produce a major eruption; if this were to happen, relief efforts would probably be quickly organized. " - Can be improved ... "probably" just seems out of place. What do the source say? I presume they positively say "Would be quickly " or "could be quickly ..".

Done. Volcanoguy 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Lead: "The Garibaldi Volcanic Belt has a long history of eruptions and poses a threat to the surrounding region. .." That sentence follows a few sentences on eruptions. It seems like that sentence should start the 2nd paragraph of the lead, leading into more detailed discussion of eruptions.

I switched the second the third paragraphs to make it more obvious. Volcanoguy 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Photo quality: the two photos in the "Historic" section are rather poor quality, especially the bottom one ... it looks like red lava, but the caption indicates it is a landslide. I'd recommend removing that bottom photo ... or, better, going to the source and asking for a better image.

I do not see anything in the FA criteria that mentions all images should be high quality. And lava just dosen't look like that. In my view it is brown. Have you ever thought the rock might be that colour? Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Should be alphabetized

Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Some editors believe that a FA quality article should have no articles listed in See Also, because the ideal article would include, somewhere in its body, a mention of (and link to) any article that would/could be in the See Also section. Personally, I'm not one of those editors; but, maybe you could ask yourself if any of those six links could be sensibly fit into the article body somehow.
• External links: should be alphabetized.

Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Table column headings: "Age": reader should not have to jump down to footnote to understand the column. Recommend change "Age" to "Years before present" (top table); and "Year" (bottom table).

Done. Volcanoguy 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Although Mount Meager is a potentially active volcano, ...". Is there a better, official word for "potentially active"? Volcanos are either dormant or ....? What? Just because it is not erupting today, there must be some term that means something other than dormant, true?

It is mentioned in the article that the regional hot springs are most likely related to volcanic activity. If so, it is not not a true dormant volcano and thats why it is probably more appropiate to use potentally active. Furthermore, terms like dormant and extinct are pretty vague in science and are not normally used by scientists. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no section on "Recreation" or "Climbing". Is there boating/fishing/camping on the mountain? How about hiking or backpacking trails? Certainly the mountain climbers have routes. E.g. when was the first ascent? What is most popular route? What is the route graded? Etc.

I couldn't find anything for most of those things. Why would this article have information about boating and fishing? It has no lakes. Bivouac.com has information about ascent of Meager but as far as I am aware of bivouac is not considered a reliable source. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)—

• Surveying history: If possible, add info about surveying history. When was it first surveyed? By which party? Original height estimate (vs modern)? Ah, that is covered okay in the "Naming" section ... I overlooked that in my first read. --Noleander (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Climate and vegetation" section: broaden title to include wildlife. Maybe "Natural history"? Or similar.

Changed to "Regional geography". Volcanoguy 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you add any more details about fauna? The article seems heavily tilted towards geology, giving short shrift to recreation, flowers, animals. I'm not suggesting each be equally represented, but there is only one sentence on animals.

There is not lots of information available for fauna and flora. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Better photo: Just a thought: it looks like a gorgeous mountain ... but the photos are not doing it justice. Even the InfoBox photo is dark and shady; and the other pics have white snow fields against a white sky. Can you put out a request to Canadian mountaineering groups soliciting a photo someone would be willing to donate to WM commons? Not a show stopper for FA, but the article is poorly served by its photos.

Changed image in infobox. What is wrong with having a cloudy sky with a glaciated mountain? Can still tell the difference between the two things. Furthermore, clouds are common in mountainous regions. Volcanoguy 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Come now people, this is starting to look like one of my FACs! ResMar 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)