Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2017

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2017 [1].

Pigeon guillemot[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugz and Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm please to co-nom this with RileyBugz. A delightful little seabird from the north Pacific. It's had a picking over at GAN and covers all the relevant material. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I remember these from Vancouver. Two experienced editors, so just nit-picks and suggestions really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps add a template specifying the variety of English to deter Americanisation of spelling
  • It probably should be in American English, but my own English is something of a mix. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are five subspecies of the pigeon guillemot. Its breeding plumage…—bit clunky, perhaps There are five subspecies of the pigeon guillemot. All have a breeding plumage…
I actually merged the two sentences, as it would have appeared odd if I had done your wording. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link Invertebrates, monogamous, genetic, morphological, sister clade and moult
  • derived from the motto of the state of California, which itself is derived from the Greek heurēka—better perhaps the same as the motto of the state of California, and derived from the Greek heurēka
I actually just removed the "derived" and "itself", as I think that is much better and concise. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bill is long and black with a red mouth—the bill has a red mouth? Reads oddly
  • taking off in calm conditions without a runway—from water?
  • They have difficulty taking off in calm conditions… they are faster than the black guillemot… In the water it is a strong swimmer…—plural-singular change
  • Para beginning Usually arriving at its breeding range… overworks "usually"
Removed some instances of "usually". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling of eg "colour" and "grey" appears to be consistent, so I'll leave it with you whether you want to change the version of English, otherwise happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jim. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

  • All future verbs - "x will x" - can be made present tense (i.e. remove all the "will"s)
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it be a superspecies with the black guillemot if the spectacled guillemot is its sister taxon?
A superspecies is a classification based on physical description, whereas the term sister taxon is a phylogenetic description. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worth putting that as a footnote. Even got me...but not a deal-breaker..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just did that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link monogamous, incubation.

Looks good otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Cepphus_columba5.jpg: source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the image on the USFWS site, so while I assume it's fine I have taken it down for now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting read. A few comments.

  • "which Pallas noted was the derived from the common name of Greenland dove for the related black guillemot." I'm not sure this makes sense.
  • "They typically sleep in loose groups in sheltered water" I might say "waters".
  • "The pigeon guillemot is a very vocal bird, particularly during the breeding season,[6] and makes a number of calls, some of which are paired with displays, to communicate with others of their kind." "their" likely should be "its".
  • "One such display call pairing is the conspicuous hunch-whistle, where the tail is slightly raised, the wings held slightly out and the head thrown back 45-90° while whistling before snapping back to horizontal." not the clearest sentence. Possibly a comma after "whistling" might help.
  • " It forages at depths from 6 to 45 m (20 to 148 ft), but it prefers to forage at depths between 15 and 20 m (50 and 70 ft)." I might cut "to forage at" as unneeded.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " feeding on shoals of sandlance at the water surface." possibly "water's surface".
  • "Smaller prey items are probably consumed underwater, but larger prey items are brought to the surface to eat after capture." I would avoid the repetition of "prey items". Better yet, I would cut "items " both times and change the second "prey" to "organisms" or some such.
  • " The diet varies greatly, based on where the individual bird is, the season, for example invertebrates are more commonly taken in winter, and also from year to year, as ocean conditions change prey availability" I'm not sure this completely works, you seem to have abandoned a list midway leaving "the season" as something of an orphan.
  • I have moved the example out to allow the list to finish, as you note it does kind of break stuff up (was originally in parentheses) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Specialization in a pigeon guillemot when foraging for its chicks generally results in greater reproductive success, with a high-lipid diet allowing for more growth." It's not clear what is meant by "specialization" in this context.
  • "Colonies are attended during the day and, except for birds incubating or brooding, adults do not remain in the colony at night. Birds usually arrive in the colony in the morning with counts decreasing as the day goes on." I don't know much about such things but it seems to me logical that it should be "increasing" as stragglers come in.
Reworded to prevent confusion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with eggs getting longer when laid later in the breeding season progresses" some difficulty here I think.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and adults near oiled shores display symptoms of hepatocellular injury, a liver injury where elevated levels of aspartate aminotransferase can be found" I would avoid the second use of "injury".
Reworded. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • Link fledging.
I linked fledge. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few duplicate links here and there.
Removed two (the rest are either a. not duplicate links or b. duplicate links because they are linked in the cladogram). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks amazing. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2017 [2].

Banksia serrata[edit]

Nominator(s): Gderrin (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have been buffing this article over the years. It got a detailed GA review and we think it is the equal of other banksia FAs. Let us know what to fix. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Not much to say here just nit-picks and suggestions really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "inflorescences"—Why quote marks here, and not in other Banksia article?
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 and 3 millimetres (1⁄16 and 1⁄8 in) —one of my many objections to using fractions instead of decimals is that it leads to nonsense like this, where the maximum length is thrice the minimum in international units, but only double in Imperial. Do they shrink in the US?
removed fractions Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the plant may take several years to flower—lose "Note that"
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi, I've used question marks here as my understanding might be off, especially re conversions and hyphenation. If so, please ignore.

  • "The coyledons are linear to" - cotyledons
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grey bark up to 3 cm thick" - needs conversion?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "styles" - wlink?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Old flower spikes develop into "cones" that consist of up to thirty follicles that develop from the flowers that were pollinated, and old withered flower parts that give the cones a hairy appearance." - hard to read (esp with 3 x flower/s), maybe split into two sentences?
sentence split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The obovate (egg-shaped) seed is..." - move (egg-shaped) to first use of obovate?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and B. ornata as next closest relative." its next closest?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelgoola" - explain location or co-ords?
dammit, smallet most inclusive area is Central Tablelands...might make a stub somehow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... are believed to be quite old." - put "quite old" in quotes as the lack of context comes from the ref?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dieback" - wlink?
the link is in the pathogen just further on. dieback is a disambig page leading to that anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between 2 and 6 m high" - needs conversion?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with stems with a DBH of under 1 cm..." (and following cm mentions) - need conversions?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "free-draining seed raising mixture" - seed raising need hyphen?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "well drained soil" - hyphen?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in a well drained soil, preferably fairly sandy and a sunny aspect, with a pH from 5.5 to 7.5." - move the pH back before sunny aspect?
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...originally from Green Cape area..." - the?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... selection from large flowered (spikes to 27 centimetres (11 in) high) and large leaved population..." - large flowered and/or large leaved need hyphens?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Happily signing for support. JennyOz (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • Australia is linked, but according to WP:Overlinking, it should not be.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few duplicate links here and there.
some de-linked, others not as we usually keep a link in both lead and body of article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • European honeybees could be linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rest seems awesome. Very well written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Strong oppose because the community has had it up to here with Banksia Joking, of course. Very little wrong with the article after one read, just some minor quibbles. Oh, and I'm a Wikicup participant, which I think I'm supposed to say here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd lose the "through" in " Queensland through to Victoria", but that's personal preference really.
I used the "through" as it is a distance of a few thousand km, but not essential and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain "branchlets", perhaps?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solander should not have an honorific, should he?
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a mention of the fact that the naturalists were English, and the Endeavour was an English vessel.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "red Banksia" is not in the lead, but the others are: why?
It's a name rarely used. I generally stick to names that have or have had some traction over time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1891, German botanist Otto Kuntze challenged the generic name Banksia L.f., on the grounds that the name Banksia had previously been published in 1775 as Banksia J.R.Forst & G.Forst, referring to the genus now known as Pimelea." There's something missing in this sentence, I think...also, shouldn't the abbreviation "L.f." be explained in full the first time?
I added a footnote explaining the abbreviations. The sentence itself is grammatical. I guess I could replace "challenged" with "disputed". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? "Banksia had previously been published in 1775 as Banksia J.R.Forst & G.Forst, referring" I'm wondering if it should be "Banksia had previously been published in 1775 as Banksia by J.R.Forst & G.Forst, referring" Or maybe I'm just missing something.
these are botanical abbreviations (see Author citation (botany)), i.e. they are special suffixes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, don't we usually put spaces between initials?
not in these suffixes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. It's a tad confusing, I'm sure you'll admit.
  • "Classic" in "classic monograph" not needed.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Wilsons Promontory (39°08′ S) in Victoria to the south" might be clearer as "in the south" Not incorrect, though, I think.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "banksia jewel betel" be capitalized someplace?
errr....no...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their tall habit makes them especially vulnerable." I know what is meant here by "tall habit" but wondering if the general reader does.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the parent plant by strong wind in an hour." Reads a bit funny. Maybe "from the parent plant in an hour by strong wind? Not critical, though.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A photo of the wood or the seeds might be nice, but is totally optional.
we-ell, non seed photos (I might go and grab an old spike and toast it over the stove and get a couiple of seeds..but some nice photos showing off its knobbly trunk - see File:Banksia serrata trunk kirrawee email.jpg, File:Banksia serrata in INBG Glasnevin Dublin 04.jpg and File:Banksia serrata regrowth Kurnell orig.JPG (last one after bushfire showing regrowth) - which of those do you like? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with [3], because it shows the color off nicely, but the post-fire image may also be nice for the relevant section. Up to you.

That's all from me: nice work. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed, so support from me. Vanamonde (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2017 [4].

The Blue Flame (play)[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Flame is a 1920 stage play with a distinction that most would not want: it may be the worst play ever performed on Broadway. Audiences laughed at supposedly serious lines; words like "abysmal" and "freakish" appeared in reviews. The article has been GA since February, so presumably it is better than its subject! I await your critical reviews. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is more of a clarification question, but does femme fatale need to be in italics as it has entered into the English language lexicon?
    • After checking a few guides, italics removed.
  • In the lead, I would attribute who described it as "one of the worst plays ever written".
    • Attribution added.
  • In the "Plot" section, I would add some context to identify who Ned Maddox is as he appears rather abruptly in the description.
    • Reworded, but there is a limit to how much context I can add. The full text of the play is not published, so I can only work from summaries in other sources.
      • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you linked "dream" in the lead, should it also be linked in the body of the article for consistency?
  • I would suggest organizing the paragraphs in the "Critical reception" subsection around topics with clear topic sentences, as suggested by this resource, as it is a little all-over-the-place. The second paragraph appears to be focused on the criticism of the dialogue and the fourth paragraph is about the retrospective reviews, but the first and third paragraph appear a little shapeless, and would benefit from some revision and focus.
    • Reworked to a first paragraph about negative reviews that were somewhat kinder to Bara, a second to those who condemned her equally with the rest of the play, and the third to retrospectives. Hopefully that makes sense, but I'm open to other ideas for how to organize the section.
      • Thank you. I think that it helped that particular section a lot to give more structure. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this article. It is a very interesting read. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing. Replies above about each of your suggestions, and let me know if you spot anything else that needs addressing. --RL0919 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful work with this article; it was an interesting read. I support this for promotion. Good luck with this, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose[edit]

Who could resist this? Just for laughs, I would go see the play if that were possible. The article is interesting, well-organized, and well-illustrated. It appears to be comprehensive. My suggestions below have to do mainly with prose and style, and none should involve much trouble. I made a few minor changes as I went. Please revert any you think are inappropriate.
Lede
  • ¶2 "The play received strongly negative reviews, with critics ridiculing the plot, dialog, and Bara's acting." – Replace "with plus -ing" construction? Suggestion: "Critics panned the play, ridiculing the plot, dialog, and Bara's acting."
  • ¶2 "Bara's movie fame drew large crowds to theaters, making the play a commercial success, with the production breaking attendance records at some of its venues." – Replace the "with plus -ing" in this one too? Suggestion: "Bara's movie fame drew large crowds to theaters, and the play, breaking attendance records at some venues, was a commercial success."
Plot
  • The "blue flame" claim is supported by a reliable source, but what about the rest of the plot? What is the source for this?
Plot summaries usually aren't cited, because in most cases the source is the work itself. But considering that The Blue Flame is unpublished and hasn't been performed in almost a century, that's not the case here, so you are correct that this should be cited. Started adding and should finish in the next few days.
Sounds fine. Finetooth (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background and development
  • ¶1 Note 1 ends with "These figures follow the figures as of 2015." Can this sentence be deleted? The main text already specifies 2015, and the repetition of "figures ... figures" seems a bit strange.
This text comes from a template that is used in many articles, so I am reluctant to remove the information entirely. However, I did update the wording to eliminate the repetition.
  • ¶1 "The first version of The Blue Flame was written by Leta Vance Nicholson, a movie scenario writer." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Leta Vance Nicholson, a movie scenario writer, wrote the first version of The Blue Flame".
  • ¶2 "...a "vamp", playing femme fatale roles, with her characters seducing and ruining innocent men." – Replace "with plus -ing"? Suggestion: "a 'vamp' or femme fatale who seduced and ruined innocent men."
Productions and legacy
  • ¶1 Just as you already did for Boston, you might as well eliminate the state names for the equally well-known Pittsburg and Chicago.
  • ¶2 "settled with a cash payment to Davis..." – Do the sources say how much he got? I wondered.
I don't believe so. Settlement terms in this type of case are often kept confidential.
  • Critical reception
  • ¶1 "Variety said opinions in the daily press were united about how bad the play was, but expected Bara to draw audiences to the theater for at least a few weeks." – It's not quite clear whether this means that the magazine thought Bara would draw audiences or whether it was reporting that the daily press was saying so. Maybe "...but that reviewers expected..."?
  • ¶1 "Overall the play was a tremendous financial success, with the previews breaking attendance records." – Another "with plus -ing". Suggestion: "The play was a tremendous financial success, and its previews broke attendance records." Or something like that.
This is your only copy editing suggestion that I don't think is really an improvement.
My pouncing on "with plus -ing" might go too far now and then, I admit. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "In Boston, the show was sold out, even after adding extra matinees." – Since the show didn't add matinees, maybe recast to something like "In Boston, the show sold out even after the addition of extra matinees."
Works cited
  • I don't think you need to repeat the page numbers in this subsection since you've already got them embedded in the references. It's possible that someone will eventually want to add another citation to a different page of any of these works.
Removed a page number mistakenly included for a book. Page ranges for articles are normally provided in bibliographies, and there wouldn't be a way for anyone to cite the work outside those ranges, because it would be a different article.
  • You might want to convert the Golden book ISBN to its 13-digit form. A converter lives here.
Golden's book was published in 1996, before ISBN-13 was developed. My rule is to use the ISBN that appears in the edition actually used, so that someone looking at the physical copy can verify it. That is what I've done on my previous FAs and would prefer to continue unless there is a consensus to do it differently.
OK, and thank you. That is a good reason. Finetooth (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review. I've made changes along the lines of most of your suggestions, and commented above only where there is something different/additional to say. I'm still working on one item and will update again when finished. --RL0919 (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I leave it to you to add the source or sources for the rest of the plot summary. This is an entertaining article, nicely done Finetooth (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parcly Taxel (with image and source review)[edit]

Images are appropriately licenced, alt-texted and used. Sources are also all reliable, drawing from both contemporary and modern reviews of the play, and are appropriately used in the article. I gave my own look at the prose too and it's OK (after the edits above). I completely support the article becoming featured. Parcly Taxel 02:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Note to delegates: I was the GA reviewer for this article.

  • "Theda Bara in The Blue Flame" Strictly speaking, that's a publicity photo; she's not really performing there. How about "Theda Bara as Ruth Gordon"?
  • Can I recommend putting the pictures of Dinehart and Jennings together using Template:Multiple images?

And that's about it. An engaging read, though it is quite short. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing (again). Good point about the infobox image; caption changed. Regarding the suggestion of using {{Multiple images}} for the cast photos, I played around with it a bit and don't think it improves the display in this case. I think it was a good idea in The Demi-Virgin (where you previously suggested it and I used your suggestion), but that article had four cast images and this only has the two. --RL0919 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is an excellent article; although it's short, my checks at GAC suggest (though certainly not conclusively) that it is comprehensive. I am watching this page to make sure no further issues arise. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: J Milburn were you planning to return to this at all? And although I see a source review above, I don't see anything about source formatting consistency. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support added above; thanks for the reminder. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned reference formatting and only one anomaly (probably a typo) stood out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2017 [5].

Walt Disney World Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the steam railroad attraction located in the Magic Kingdom theme park of Walt Disney World in the outskirts of Orlando, Florida. This is the sister attraction of the Disneyland Railroad located in the original Disneyland theme park in Anaheim, California. The railroad opened on October 1, 1971, and since then it has become one of the busiest attractions of its kind on the planet with an estimated 3.7 million passengers served every year. I re-wrote the entire article last year and after doing so, I successfully campaigned to get it upgraded to good article status. I feel that it satisfies the criteria to be upgraded further to featured article status, which, of course, will ultimately be decided by the reviewers. I look forward to reading your opinions and working together to make the Walt Disney World Railroad article a new piece of featured content on Wikipedia. Jackdude101 01:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from epicgenius: Based on a cursory examination, the article looks well-researched. Some points:
  • General comments:
    • After mentioning US$32,500 in the "Discovery of Mexico" section, any prices in US$ could just be mentioned with the dollar symbol, e.g. $8,000  Done
    • The alt text seems good. It doesn't seem to correspond with the captions, however - and you may want to align the alt text more with the captions. This may be a problem for people with screen readers, since all they hear is a description of the image that otherwise has no relation to the article. E.g: [[Image:Walt Disney World Railroad train.jpg|thumb|left|The WDWRR's Mickey's Toontown Fair Station in 2008 prior to its transformation into Fantasyland Station in 2012|alt=A circus-themed train station]] is parsed by screen readers as "a circus-themed train station" without any other context whatsoever.  Done
    • If you know how to use {{Attached KML}}, you can also make a Google Maps KML file, upload it, and insert the template into the article. Then people will see the train's route on Google maps. I can help you with that. ✗ Not done
      • The route diagram template already present in the article serves that purpose, and adding an additional map, I feel, would be redundant. There is a link at the bottom of the article to a map of the railroad in OpenStreetMap, as well. Furthermore, there isn't a good spot to put something like this without having to remove some of the other images already in the article. Jackdude101 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I didn't see the OSM link earlier. However, the attached KML can be shown with no box at all, and allows the route to be shown on WikiMiniAtlas that is built into Wikipedia. But I respect your decision. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read the {{Attached KML}} instructions and it actually looks pretty simple to do, and given that it will only create a simple box in the External links section, it will be out-of-the-way, also. I'm open to adding this, but let's wait a few months for updated satellite imagery of the Disneyland Railroad to become available, so both railroads can get these at the same time. Right now, one quarter of that railroad's route is completely torn up and surrounded by a sprawling construction site. Jackdude101 19:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Discovery in Mexico" section:
    • was overseen by Mapo, Inc. (Retlaw Enterprises' research and manufacturing branch) Vice President and General Manager Roger E. Broggie. → was overseen by Roger E. Broggie, Vice President and General Manager of Mapo, Inc., Retlaw Enterprises' research and manufacturing branch. Or something similar. The parenthetical breaks up the sentence awkwardly.  Done
    • The location was a railroad boneyard in Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico: add a comma after "Mexico"  Done
  • In "Restoration in Florida":
    • with the space and equipment needed to accommodate full-size railroad equipment: the word "equipment" is repeated consecutively. I suggest replacing one instance of the word with a synonym.  Done
    • Built in 1902, it was the oldest of the five locomotives purchased and after determining that it had too many problems to be rebuilt, the locomotive was stored out of use in California for a period before being sold to a locomotive broker.: This is a run on sentence and may be split. Additionally, "after determining that it had too many problems to be rebuilt" does not match the grammatical subject "the locomotive". Obviously you're saying that the restoration team determined the locomotive's problems, but the subject doesn't match.  Done
  • In "Opening day to present day":
    • You should describe the geographical locations of Main Street USA, Frontierland, and Toontown (or New Fantasyland, last time I went) in relation to the park itself. As any Disney visitor knows, Main Street is in the south, Frontierland in the northwest, and New Fantasyland in the northeast - but this would be helpful to describe anyway.  Done
  • In "Ride experience":
    • If the above comment in "Opening day to present day" is resolved, there's no need to put geographical compass directions here. Otherwise, relative directions should be placed.  Done
    • After going through a tunnel through the Splash Mountain log flume attraction, the train's next stop is at Frontierland Station: the subject for "After going...attraction" should be "the train", not "the train's next stop."  Done
    • close proximity is redundant. Just use "proximity". Interesting fact I just learned, BTW. I just assumed they launched the fireworks from Fantasyland behind the castle, near the carousel. In the same sentence, I suggest a change of "will not run" into "does not run" since this is a current service pattern.  Done
  • In "rolling stock":
    • Each Walt Disney World Railroad locomotive when working on the line → When working on the line, each Walt Disney World Railroad locomotive or something similar.  Done
    • I suggest you add a {{clear}} right before the table so you have a wider table. It may look weird on narrow devices, but the table could be wider.  Done
  • In "block signals": No issues.
    • Interesting why, when the signal is green & yellow, the train must stop when 2 trains are operating, but it may proceed when 3 trains are operating. I guess it's to space the two trains out more and pack the three trains in. But anyway, this note is not necessary. As an avid fan of subways, I personally believe that Disney should install communications-based train control so they can run 4 trains at a time.
      • The railroad runs most efficiently when the number of trains operating and the number of stations are equal. The other reason why they have four locomotives, but only use three max at once, is so the locomotives can be rotated out of service routinely for maintenance. Steam locomotives are a pain-in-the-neck in this area. Jackdude101 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think this is some very good work. I didn't check images or references, and being relatively new to commenting a featured article, I don't know if this is the right format to make my comments. epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All files seem to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

I don't see many problems. There might be some people who need a wikilink but it seems I might be wrong since in one example there are three people with the same name. Anyways, good luck with this nomination. I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I will have to echo Tintor2’s comments above, and say that I cannot find much that needs revision. My only note would be to add WDWRR in parenthesis after Walt Disney World Railroad to make sure the acronym is clarified and spelled out in the body of the article as well as the lead. Otherwise, I completely support this; wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, I'd like a little more commentary on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c for this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • What makes ProgressCity a reliable source?
  • What makes ImagiNERDing a reliable source?
  • What makes SteamLocomotive a reliable source?
  • What makes TouringPlans.com a reliable source?
  • What makes Crazy for Disney World a reliable source?
  • What makes Theme Park Insider a reliable source?
  • What makes Railfanning.org a reliable source?
  • Formatting stuff looks ok. ceranthor 13:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: Thank you for taking the time to review this article's sources. I removed the ProgessCity, ImagiNERDing, SteamLocomotive.com, and Crazy for Disney World sources entirely. Most of the info they were citing was either already cited by other sources or the info cited was unimportant. TouringPlans.com has been publishing tourist guides about Walt Disney World in print since 1985, per this webpage: [6]. Theme Park Insider and Railfanning.org have been recognized by more well-known publications according to these webpages: [7]; [8]. Let me know whether the sources are satisfactory now. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fine except I'm still not sure Railfanning.org meets the reliable source criteria. Mention by a few newspapers doesn't convince me that it's reliable. ceranthor 17:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I removed the Railfanning.org source and replaced it with one other source already present in the article that references the same info. I believe that resolves everything. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I will try to look over the prose today or tomorrow. ceranthor 19:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • with three train stations in different areas - kind of vague to just say different areas... different areas of the park? I'd just rewrite this sentence to make that more clear  Done
  • The rail line, built by WED Enterprises, is operated with four historic steam locomotives originally built by Baldwin Locomotive Works - Any reason you can't just say "operates with", thus avoiding the passive voice?  Done
  • The rail line, built by WED Enterprises, is operated with four historic steam locomotives originally built by Baldwin Locomotive Works - try to substitute a second word for built, don't like seeing the same word twice in the same sentence  Done
  • serving 3.7 million passengers each year. - On average? I see this appears again later in the article so some clarification would be nice ✗ Not done
The source for this piece of info, despite mentioning it twice, does not specify that this is an average figure outright. I would think that it is an average figure, as they did not specify that it was for any specific year. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The five locomotives and spare parts acquired by Roger Broggie, in order to receive the aesthetic and mechanical restorations necessary to run on the planned Walt Disney World Railroad (WDWRR), were sent to the Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Company in Tampa, Florida.[6] - I'd switch the in order bit to the end of the sentence for sentence flow  Done
  • The original, dilapidated boilers of the four locomotives built by Baldwin Locomotive Works were replaced by brand-new, smaller boilers built by Dixon Boiler Works.[9][10] - When something is outdated, it's usually replaced "with" not replaced by something else  Done
  • Their worn-out wood and steel cabs were replaced with new fiberglass cabs, and they were given new tenders, which utilized the trucks from the original tenders.[5][9] - I understand that this sentence is clunky for clarity, but it's a bit too clunky as it stands. I'd try to keep the original meaning without repeating tenders or cabs  Done
  • they were not able to restore the Pittsburgh Locomotive and Car Works locomotive acquired along with them. - Who is they?  Done
  • It was stored out of use in California for a period before being sold to a locomotive broker.[10] - Might be worth mentioning who if you know ✗ Not done
The source material does not identify the locomotive broker (it's a miracle that the information you do see is available at all, as Disney tends to be very secretive about these sorts of things). Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • During construction of the Splash Mountain attraction and the current Frontierland Station, the WDWRR was temporarily named Backtrack Express - Was it named or renamed?  Done

This is an informative and interesting article, and I'll be happy to support once my nitpicky comments are resolved. Great work! ceranthor 21:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: All points addressed. On a related note, do you believe the article is comprehensive? Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I'm confused why so much more information seems to be available on the Disneyland railroad. Have there been any noteworthy incidents at the WDW Railroad, and is there any info you can add to the ride experience section? ceranthor 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: There are multiple reasons why there is more info available for the Disneyland Railroad (DRR) than the Walt Disney World Railroad (WDWRR). One reason is that the DRR is covered better in the reliable source material at my disposal. As an example, in the Michael Broggie book (pretty much the "Bible of the Disney train universe"), which I used heavily to reference both articles, 68 pages are dedicated specifically to the DRR, while there are only 18 pages dedicated to the WDWRR. Another reason is that Walt Disney himself was personally involved with the DRR's development from start to finish, and even drove the trains on occasion. However, he died before construction of Walt Disney World even began. Besides having virtually no direct connection to Walt Disney himself, the WDWRR's rolling stock and route have remained virtually unchanged since it opened in 1971. In regards to WDWRR incidents, I scoured the Internet for any mention of major incidents, but found none. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services produces a quarterly report on all theme park incidents in Florida, but the worst that the WDWRR has experienced within the past few decades is a handful of reported cases of dizziness. Source: [9]. Also, the WDWRR's Ride experience section is shorter that the DRR's Ride experience section because it's a much simpler affair. Three stations instead of four, no dioramas, and so forth. I believe I covered all of the highlights in that section. The only area where the WDWRR seems to be more complex than the DRR is its block signal system, hence the separate section for that in its article. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I do think the article is comprehensive, and that the prose is up to snuff. So I'll support. ceranthor 21:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments[edit]

@FAC coordinators: To recap, the article has completed an image review, a source review, two prose reviews, and has four confirmed supporters. Unless there is anything outstanding that you can find, it appears that this review is ready to close and the that this article should be upgraded to FA status. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2017 [10].

Donald Hardman[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time for another RAAF chief, this one being the second and last RAF officer to run the service. That caused resentment, but it soon dissipated. Hardman had a good pedigree: fighter ace in World War I, foreign postings between the wars, and group command in World War II. He also seems to have been a likeable bloke, as well as an imaginative organiser. His main claim to fame is that he transformed the Air Force from its WWII-era geographically based command-and-control system into a functional command system, which essentially exists today. The article's post-military section is a bit thin, but I think he just lived a quiet life -- I've combed British newspaper archives for mentions and it pretty well amounts to a few letters he wrote to The Times... Thanks to all who participated at the MilHist A-Class Review a while back, and in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note on the caption to the image showing Hardman with Mountbatten in 1954. Mountbatten had long since ceased to be "Lord Louis" by then. That was his courtesy title as the son of a marquis. He was given a viscountcy in his own right in 1946, and an earldom in 1947. So the caption should correctly refer to "Earl Mountbatten", or "Lord Mountbatten" at a pinch. Trivial stuff I know, but still... Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Brian, I was following the caption at the source Australian War Memorial image, but they can get things wrong occasionally too -- the best compromise is probably "Lord Mountbatten" so will change accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Interesting read. Really couldn't find much to complain about:

  • "Hardman shot down two German Fokker D.VIIs in flames." I'm not sure you can split the phrase like that, possibly "Hardman sent two German Fokker D.VIIs down in flames."
  • "India's North-West Frontier" a parenthetical that it's now Pakistan might be handy. Similarly, " Comilla, India." might mention it's Bangladesh.
  • "St George's Church in Hanover Square, London" This is usually referred to as "St George's, Hanover Square" and I would say "in London" so as to separate it.
  • You might want to mention how he got back from France in 1940, if it is known.
  • You have a mix of 10 and 13 digit ISBNs in the refs.
    I can't find anything in the MOS about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall being advised to always use 13 digits if available but can't recall if it was based on something in MOS or not -- the mix would be due to my earliest work on the article pre-dating that advice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or the books you're using predate ISBN-13. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it is short, but we can only reflect what the sources give us.
  • Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for review/support -- nothing specific about how he returned to Britain in 1940 but made changes regarding your other points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Peacemaker67[edit]

This is the first time I've looked at this article, and it is in fine shape. I have a few comments/queries:

  • suggest "and appointed as one".
    • Done.
  • I'm personally not a fan of "kills", you might like to use victories? No biggie either way really.
    • I think I used it to reduce repetition of the term "victories" but fair enough -- done.
  • when mentioning the termination of his commission, you might mention that was a standard part of demobilisation, otherwise readers might wonder why, given his outstanding record
    • Yeah, perhaps I'm a bit conservative but I prefer not to embellish with details that aren't in the cited sources even when it's undoubtedly the case -- the alternative is "ceased to be employed" by the RAF, which is language used in the source, but not sure that's an improvement.
  • any hint of seeing action in India in the 1920s?
  • again, "bombing duties" in Egypt indicates there might have been action?
    • Not explicitly -- the best I've been able to do is give a flavour of the two units' duties at the time Hardman was posted to them.
  • any action in France in 1939–1940? or was he a staff officer?
    • Strongly suspect the latter but again this isn't made clear.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little light on for detail in parts, but if that's what is available on him I think it meets the comprehensiveness criteria, and it easily meets all the other criteria, so happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks fine. I have some comments.

  • "fatal crash" links to "Avro Vulcan", which I consider a bit strange. Wouldn't it be better to link to 1956 London Heathrow Avro Vulcan crash?
    • Indeed -- I'd added this bit to the Hardman article before the crash article was created.
  • "He was succeeded by Air Marshal McCauley" We don't need "Air Marshal"
    • Fair enough.
  • As an aside, I found it interesting that he was commissioned when he was 17 years old. If he had joined the AFC, he would have been held back in the UK until his 19th birthday, and would never have seen action at all.
  • You mention that Burnett's tenure at CAS was controversial. This article doesn't say why, but it was mainly because (a) he was a British officer appointed by Menzies when more qualified RAAF officers were available; (b) he put Britain first and oriented the RAAF towards European commitments; and (c) he wasn't highly regarded in the RAF and indeed was retired when he returned to the UK. Your article then notes that Hardman did the same. The concept of "attacking the enemy's vital centres, which included its means of producing fighters" which makes very little or no sense in the context of South East Asia or the Middle East, and really wouldn't have applied in the UK either, leaving the impression that his thinking was stalled in 1939. On return to the UK, he did assume another post, but one usually reserved for an officer on the brink of retirement (With the curious exception of Sir William Dickson).
    • Re. Burnett, I felt that details on his tenure would slow the Hardman narrative, especially as Burnett's linked WP article goes into it. Re. the Burnett parallels, and the "vital centres" question, I take your point but can only reflect how the sources put it, and none I've seen raise these issues.
  • Did he envisage the V-bombers being used in the conventional or nuclear role?
    • His ADB bio suggests it, so tweaked the article.
  • Like Peacemaker, I was a little disappointed with the coverage of World War II, particularly the Combined Cargo Task Force, but also the work of the Directorate of Military Co-operation. But you work with what you have.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for review and suggestions Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows a couple of spots where the prose is probably a little close and could be tweaked a bit.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Ealdgyth -- I think a lot of the similarities re. postings and promotions is probably unavoidable but there were certainly a couple of spots where I could have used a little more imagination in my phrasing, now rectified I hope. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need an image review for this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Hawkeye7[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 [11].

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth studio album by American rock group Marilyn Manson. I've edited the article significantly since it was last nominated here (it's been nominated a total of 6 times since 2011). I've gone through every archive with a fine tooth comb and dealt with everything that was ever raised—except the issue in archive3 about converting the Mercury logo from *.jpg format to *.svg (I have no idea what an svg is, and none of my image editing software has the ability to create svg's). Aside from this, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. This would be my second FA, after The Pale Emperor. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Freikorp.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Does "declaration of war" have to be wikilinked? Its strikes me as a bit inappropriate. Suggest you put it in quotes also.
Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • "citing rumors that they contained animal sacrifices, bestiality and rape" - strongly suggest you add a comma and then add information that these rumours were completely false. Snopes has a article you might find handy for this: [12]
Changed to "Numerous politicians lobbied to have their performances banned, citing false and exaggerated claims that they contained animal sacrifices, bestiality and rape." Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • "alleged that the shooters were fans, and were wearing the group's T-shirts during the massacre" - again, can you find a source that states this was incorrect then add that information to the sentence?
added ", although these reports were later proven to be false." with new source.
  • "Gigwise ranked it at number ten on their list" - What year did this happen?
2008. Added.
  • "Drowned in Sound rated the album 10 out of 10, highlighting the band's performances." 'highlighting the band's performances' is rather vague and seems to raise more questions than it answers regarding why it got 10 out of 10. Can you be a little more specific?
Added quote from review.
  • "was seen by music critics and fans alike as the best album of the band's discography, as well as one of the greatest rock albums of all time" - I think you're going to need direct inline citations for that claim.
This was sourced by The Needle Drop's review of The Pale Emperor, but apparently he's not WP:RS. Whoever removed the review neglected to remove this comment. I couldn't find another source to match the exact wording, so I've removed this completely and expanded the entire paragraph with some more features/articles discussing the album's impact. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Well done on the article overall. Very close to supporting. If this nomination doesn't pass, notify me the next time it gets nominated and I'll be happy to comment on it again. Freikorp (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed everything raised above. Let me know if you're not happy with any of the changes I've made, and I'll try again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Supporting. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Retrohead.

  • There's a recommendation from the manual of style that the lead should not contain exclusive information (information that's not part of the article's body). Therefore the two references in the lead about the citations are not needed if the quoted sentences are present in the body, which in this case they are.
Done.
  • "British rock magazine Kerrang! went on to include it on their list" Shouldn't be its list because Kerrang is singular?
Done.
  • "Three singles were released to promote the record" Why not just "Three singles were released from the record"? After all, singles are meant to promote an LP.
Done.
  • I'm not sure about this, but I think it's incorrect to have two punctuation marks next to each other as in "Edgar Bronfman Jr.," (from 'Background and development').
Done.
  • "The record was also released on 2×LP and Cassette formats". You can drop formats from the sentence. "Cassette" should be with small letter too.
Done.
  • "Manson and W.I.Z.," drop the comma (as mentioned in the fourth note)
Done.
  • The article is well written, well researched, and has a very interesting background. I'll wait for the minor corrections to be made, but I expect it to easily pass.
Thanks for the review Retrohead. I've fixed everything you've mentioned above. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me then. Good luck with the nomination.--Retrohead (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image/media review - the fair use images and audio files are generally fine (low res, short), but there are a few issue. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two concert photos look suspiciously like screengrabs from videos (due to the aspect ratio, border, and blur). Are we sure these are usermade? What are their sources?
  • The alchemy symbol seems generic enough to maybe not be copyrightable, but this is just a note for further investigation if anyone wants to.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. Regarding the two live images, I went to a fansite and specifically asked for fan-taken pictures from the Guns, God and Government Tour which I could upload here under a CC license. Those images were offered to me, and I was told they were from the band's show on January 22, 2001 at the Evening News Arena in Manchester, England—which wasn't filmed for broadcast. It appears as though I was lied to. The reason I went to a fansite was because I had already checked the likes of Flickr, Google Images, Pixabay, etc. for CC images, and couldn't find a single one. I'll remove them and tag them for speedy deletion. I hope the article not being illustrated by a live image would get in the way of it being promoted to FA status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, though we can't of course rule out that whoever provided the images filmed it themselves or some such. But in that case, it should have been made clear in the image description that you as the uploader did not create the photos. Anyhow, lack of such photos doesn't hinder promotion. But a photo of the artist may be appropriate somewhere, even if it isn't contemporary. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review
  • I'm not going to harp on it, especially as I can't find the hard rule about it I dimly remember, but as per Template:Cite web#Publisher and MOS:INITIALS corporate marks such as LLC should generally not be included in the name of companies e.g. Wenner Media LLC or Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. without a good reason
Removed every instance of LLC or Inc. from the article, with the exception of Time Inc. UK, since Time UK just links to a disambiguation page. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Also per Template:Cite web#Publisher, you should skip the publisher if it's basically the same thing as the work- the example given is the New York Times Company... which you do on ref 6. (There's also others, such as ref 2)
Removed all of these (as well as Village Voice Media; Washington Post Company, etc.) Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • You're mixing linking styles- at first you're linking every instance of the publisher/work/author, but then sometimes you only link the first instance (e.g. refs 16-22 drop the links, but then it starts up again intermittently after that). You should pick one; I personally go with linking all instances because finding the "first" is a pain.
Yeah, this has always confused me. People keep saying you shouldn't overlink in references, but it's annoying when you have to go trolling through an entire article to find the one that's been linked. Fixed this. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Props for both the archiving and for the instructions on 127!
  • {{Cite journal}} is meant for scientific/academic journals; you should be using its cousin, {{cite magazine}}
Changed. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • You don't seem to be using ISSNs in all cases for magazines, which is fine, I guess? NME is 0028-6362, for example.
Nice catch. Never occurred to me look up the ISSN or IBSN or the journals. Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Spotchecks: 14, 58, 67, 85, 105, 115 (though what's the point of the second ref for that sentence?), 130, 149. No issues found. --PresN 01:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, also, to be clear, I didn't see any questionable sources either. --PresN 02:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, PresN. I've taken care of all your points. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: passed. --PresN 01:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to engaging prose, comprehensiveness, and drastic improvements made in the wake of multiple FA attempts. I believe this should be the last time this article be in this pool awaiting evaluation against the FA criteria as all improvements have been exhausted and some leeway should finally be given. Slightlymad (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not entirely sure about the use of the Kerrang quote in the last paragraph of the lead as it is rather lengthy. It is appropriate for use in the body of the article, but I feel that this part could be paraphrased. If the quote is absolutely needed, then it will have to be cited in the lead with the appropriate referenced, but again, I think paraphrasing here would be better suited for the context of the lead.
I tried paraphrasing, but the quote itself is so loaded that I found it impossible to paraphrase without that sentence sounding undue or fancruft-ish. So I just put the reference beside the quote. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • In the "Background and development" section, Rock is Dead Tour should not be in quotations as it is the title of a tour.
Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but sometimes you use the album's full title and sometime you only use the first part (Holy Wood). Does this particularly matter/should this be consistent through the article and lead?
This was pretty much done just to save space. Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) is a bit of a mouth-full, and I thought it'd be overkill to use it every time. I tried using "the album" or "the record", or "film" or "novel" as much as possible - since these projects all had the same title, at one point or another. I replaced one instance of using the full title in Release and artwork; the only remaining time the full title is used in the body is in Recording and production: "... it was announced that their upcoming album had been re-titled Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death). I think it's necessary to give the full title there, since its previous title was just Holy Wood. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • In the "Tour" subsection, do you think that you should put the tour as a further information bit as done in previous sections?
Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • I am not sure of the value of the Robert Christgau review, especially since the meaning of the bomb icon is not made clear in the context of the sentence.
I left that there because Christgau seemed like a distinguished journalist, but was always dubious about it since his "review" consisted of nothing more than a symbol. I've removed it now. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Wonderful work with the article as a whole. Once my above comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting it promoted, and have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews, Slightlymad and Aoba47. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good; great work with it. I will support it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image review anywhere? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: FunkMonk provided one, about halfway down the page, on 21:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC). Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

I know very little about Marilyn Manson, so please forgive me if I miss the obvious. With that in mind, a few quibbles. I've also made some minor copy-edits for flow and clarity, let me know if you disagree with any of them. Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead paragraph references a trilogy, but it's unclear whether the three names albums are the ones which constitute it.
I've rearranged the opening paragraph to make this clearer.
  • "the band's T-shirts" is odd unless they actually belonged to the band, which I doubt they did: "commemorating the band"?
    and the same again in paragraph 2 of background
Officially merchandised T-shirts featuring emblazoned images of the band on them. I don't really know if this could be made any clearer.
I guess there's no easy phrase to replace it with, so okay.
How about "were wearing Marilyn Manson T-shirts". This sounds ridiculous, but I'm genuinely struggling with this. I guess I've spent too much time on Wikipedia trying to truncate and paraphrase complicated concepts. So when it comes to rephrasing simple statements like this, I just have a total brainfart. ;) Whatever phrasing you like best, I'm fine with. Homeostasis07 (talk)
Yeah, that's fine/better, don't sweat it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band found they could accomplish more there than in the limited environment of Manson's home studio" This sentence doesn't appear to add very much.
Removed.
  • "and the iconography of his crucifixion as the origin of celebrity." I am not certain what this means.
The paragraph goes on to explain this: he's arguing that the image of Jesus being crucified can be considered the first piece of officially-sanctioned merchandise, exploited for financial gain by the Vatican.
Alright, though you could go with "celebrity originating from the iconography of his crucifixion" or some other reordering to clarify the meaning.
I worked a bit more on this whole paragraph. It now reads: "A substantive portion of the album analyzes the cultural role of Jesus Christ, specifically Manson's view that the image of his crucifixion became the origin of celebrity. [...] He developed an opinion that Christ was a revolutionary figure—a person who was killed for having dangerous opinions, and whose image was later exploited and merchandised for financial gain by entities such as the Vatican." A bit better, although I'm still not confident about "developed an opinion" (sounds a bit childish). Any suggestions? Homeostasis07 (talk)
Much better, thank you.
  • "for the purpose of Holy Wood, he accepted the story" of what? religion?
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus, as told in the bible. I've re-worded to make this clearer.
  • More general comment; there are places in which Manson's statements are presented in a fashion that almost gives them editorial backing. The use of "noted" for instance, is questionable, unless this is a perspective that the secondary source reporting this agrees upon.
Could you be a bit more specific here? There were two instances of the article using the word "noted": one was a Manson quote, which I've removed; the other is "CMJ noted that ["The Nobodies"] could be interpreted as a tribute to the Columbine shooters..., which is a secondary source giving their perspective.
That's better. I'd also remove or rephrase "He concluded that it was unwise to allow detractors to scapegoat the work of a controversial artist"; which honestly doesn't add much. Also "He discovered that Christ was a revolutionary figure"; which is also odd because others have certainly "discovered" it before him.
Removed the former; see above point for the latter. Homeostasis07 (talk)
Satisfactory.
  • Also, Manson's statements themselves are used rather a lot. I'm not well-versed enough with the topic to say whether this is inappropriate; I know that if I were writing about a book, using the author's statements as frequently as here would not be appropriate.
Even though I don't believe this to be the case, I do get your point. There are a few quotes in Recording and production and Concept and themes, then one or two more in the first paragraph of Composition and style, but those are really just there to elaborate on what's being said, and I don't think they're being used to give undue weight, or to back up any exceptional claims. After all, who else could converse in any amount of decent detail about the specifics of the album's recording or concept, other than Manson or band members?
I'll let it pass. Yes, a musician obviously knows their own work, but allowing people to talk about themselves is at a basic level something we should minimize; NOTPROMO, NOTFORUM, PRIMARY, etc, etc.
  • "record was also released on 2×LP" To people unfamiliar with LPs, ie most people, this is confusing.
Changed to "double-LP"
  • You use "the band's vocalist" a few too many times, I think. Manson is a central figure in this story, using his name frequently is not necessarily a problem.
This was changed because others reviewers had previously complained that they weren't sure if "Manson" was referring to the vocalist or the band. They found it confusing, because they both use the same name.
Alright.
  • I'm confused as to the structure of the accolades section, which begins with a list of accolades, but in the second paragraph turns into a mixture of accolades and reviews.
I've re-arranged this.
  • Link or explain white trash with respect to Eminem.
Linked.
  • The lead sentence of "track listing" needs a source.
Done.
  • Is it usual to have a "Marilyn Manson" subtitle for the credits section, rather than a "music" or "performance", which would complement "production" better? Not familiar with this, so your call.
Yeah, it's fairly typical to have the band separated like that, where appropriate. The left column is Marilyn Manson, as its existed as a band at that time; the right one consists of recording and mix engineers, artwork creators, additional musical contributors, etc. It wouldn't be right to rename Marilyn Manson to Musicians without also adding the additional musicians to the left column: which would confuse the casual reader about the band's lineup, if they weren't all that familiar.
  • Another general comment; the article does not appear to discuss the instrumentation used for the album; is that commonplace? It may also be worth mentioning whether or not all the lyrics are in English: it's a fact English articles often overlook, but is not actually obvious.
Are you referring to the actual brands of instruments used? What's on the article is what could be sourced: Twiggy's credit for performing Leslie speaker-amplified guitar on "Lamb of God" is the closest anyone could likely get to detailed instrument credits. I doubt you'd ever find a detailed, reliable reference which specifically states: "Twiggy used a Gibson Les Paul Deluxe on track X", or "John 5 used an Ovation acoustic model on track X". And all of the lyrics are in English. They're an American band. Aside from some German double entendre's on The Golden Age of Grotesque, everything Manson's ever written has been in English.
No no, more basic. Rock bands have a basic vocals-guitar-guitar-bass-drums lineup, but deviate from it often; did these folks do so? The brands are not needed. Also, I think the point about English needs to be in the article, as even U.S. based bands use non-English lyrics frequently; especially when dealing with religious themes. I won't push too hard though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Manson use a vocalist-guitarist-bassist-keyboardist-drummer lineup. This is actually discussed in the Recording and production section. Also, I'd add English to the infobox, but the infobox template says not to use the |language=English parameter for "English albums by English-speaking artists". Should I still add it? Homeostasis07 (talk)
Missed that...that's a strange instruction; but I won't ask you to override it.

Otherwise, this looks decent. The prose is good. I cannot comment in detail about comprehensiveness or neutrality, though I have raised a couple of points above. Ideally, I would also like to see more than two images. I can understand if none are available, but surely there must be something; of the recording studio? Of performances? Of the instruments? Of the band members during this period? Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review. I think I've dealt with all your points, but let me know if you're not satisfied with anything, and I'll try again. Regarding some more images, I looked everywhere, but there are no Creative Commons images of the band performing - or even of the band generally during this era - online. I did find this, which does say "Editorial use", but I can't see any specific Creative Commons license. I'll have to ask Commons for help to see if I could use those. Update: Nope. Never thought of looking up a CC image of The Mansion (recording studio) (where the album was recorded). I can't see any at a glance, but will have a more thorough look around later. Update: Again, can't find any. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, take a look. Not a make-or-break issue. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and tone, and, to the best of knowledge, comprehensiveness, though I am not an expert on the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I've done a little copyediting to remove some "with [noun] [verb]-ing" constructions, but I notice that there are a few duplinks in the article. They aren't worth holding up promotion over, but someone should take a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I believe I've sorted out all the overlinkage. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2017 [13].

Qatna[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria. The city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:

  • "By the 15th century BC, Qatna lost its hegemony and came under the authority of Mitanni, then changing hands between the former and Egypt until being conquered by the Hittites in the 14th century BC" – this reads rather clumsily and needs rewriting for grammar and clarity, probably as two sentences.
  • "Following its destruction, the city was abandoned." You've said that the Hittites "conquered" it, but not that they "destroyed" it. Did they? I see references to subsequent destructions and re-occupations, which suggests numerous rebuilds, though these are not mentioned. A little clarification would help.
  • "The artifacts of Qatna show high-quality workmanship, while its religion was complex and based on many cults in which ancestor worship played an important role." What follows "while" is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with the earlier statement, so the serntence needs reconsideration.

I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I edited the lede, hope it looks good now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps
Nikkimaria, Is it okay now ?
  • File:Qatna's_landmarks.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Third_Mari.png
  • File:Qatna_chronology.jpg: why have this as an image rather than a table?
  • File:Sitting_god_Qatna_Louvre_AO3992.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:Louvres-antiquites-moyen-orient-p1020197.jpg, File:Antakya_Arkeoloji_Muzesi_1250344_nevit.jpg, File:Sphinx_dedicated_to_Ita_daugther_of_Amenemhat_II-AO_13075-IMG_1030-white.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on your comments asap. Note:File:Qatna's_landmarks.png already have a source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, File:Qatna_chronology.jpg is more suitable. A table will take more space and increase the size of the article. About the other pictures, Is it okay now?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Hi, I'll soon review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance "Known kings of Qatna are:" could need a citation.
  • You should provide conversions for all measurements.
  • " at least 80 rooms", "at least twenty rooms". Be consistent in whether you write numbers with letters or not.
  • "5 meters" Be consistent in whether you say m or meters.
  • "and remains of both sexes and different ages" I would add "people" or "bodies" somewhere in the sentence.
  • "reaching 18 m tall and 60 to 90 m wide" I would say "in height" and "in width".
  • "Investigations of Qatna's fortifications were not carried hindering the" Carried out?
Done. Thanks for those comments, waiting for more.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perhaps the center of a king of prince" Or?
  • "that was used for ideological reasons as it was meant to echo Gilgamesh's deeds" Interesting, how is this known?
Yahdun-Lim ordered the details of his journey to be inscribed on bricks from the temple of Shamash. The language is very propagandistic and reminds the reader of gilgamesh's deeds as he also went to Lebanon (cedar mountains)...etc. This made scholars notice that Yahdun was actually comparing himself to gilgamesh just like other monarchs tried to compare themselves to Sargon of Akkad by crossing the Euphrates. You can read the inscription here if you are interested
  • "son Yasmah-Adad to lead them leadership" Seems something is wrong here.
  • "but Mari sources are silent" Mariote?
  • "for his relations which Mari were never hostile." Since/because/as instead of for?
  • "Mari, who was at war with Eshnunna" Which was at war? "Who" would indicate a person.
  • "participation of Yamhad, who was hegemonic" Which was.
Done. FunkMonk, what does she mean with scaling ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That you should make the thumbnail image larger. See for example the first image on the left at Mascarene grey parakeet. It is so that small details will be more visible without readers having to click the image. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Qatna still controlled the Lebanon Mountains 80 km from" Conversion still needed. Maybe there are others.
Done
  • "Ḏj3wny" is 3 supposed to be there?
Its the Egyptian Aleph
  • "In the mid-19th century, a modern village was built within the ancient sit" What is the name of the original and resettled village?
Both Al-Mushrifah
I see it mentioned in the article once, but not linked. I also think it could be mentioned again all the way down in the "following periods" sections, I at least forgot the name had been mentioned when I reached that part. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No damage during then current war?
  • "and a secondary burial that was intended to transform the deceased into his ultimate form" Their? Or were only men interred this way?
  • "According to Pfälzner, a final burial stage can be noticed, which he calls the quaternary burial; tomb VII, which most probably contained remains taken out of the royal hypogeum,[20] seems to have worked as a storage for the remains of individuals whose Kispu cycle came to an end;[21] very few bowls were found in that tomb.[20]" This sentence is very long and could be broken in two.
Done. Thankfully, the city remained in the hands of the army, and no "freedom fighter" was able to loot it.
  • "used the sexagesimal system" I would say "numeral system" for clarity.
  • "Elephants, which lived in western Syria" Perhaps link Syrian elephant?
  • Photos of wall paintings might be in the public domain because they are two dimensional, perhaps worth looking if some can be found (then we can evaluate whether they are PD).
I tried in vain....... It was so frustrating but couldnt find any.
  • "were 9 m wide" Needs conversion.
  • "value was 470 g" Of what?
Hmmm just grams. Like one kilo is a 1000 grams. one mina is 470 grams
  • "which reduced it to a small village that eventually disappeared in the 6th century BC." No village is specifically mentioned in the article body (apart from the modern one), perhaps add the word to the relevant place? Which would be near "The site continued to be inhabited during the Iron Age III following the Assyrian destruction".
  • "the Syrian Desert towards the fertile Homs Basin." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
  • "This area was 5.5 x 3 meters in size" Needs conversion.
Done
  • Support - everything nicely addressed, another great article that may help the world see Syria in a different light. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot :) .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, ancestor (singular) worship was correct![14] FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look...comments below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and its impressive remains suggest... - I'd say "extensive" remains as neutral.
suggesting an abandonment of three centuries --> "suggesting it was uninhabited for three centuries"
..which was hegemonic over both Mari and Carchemish - why not just say, "which ruled over both Mari and Carchemish"?
Research done after 1999 excluded du Mesnil du Buisson's hypothesis - we'd more likely say, "Research done after 1999 ruled out (or disproved) du Mesnil du Buisson's hypothesis "
I'd link hypogeum - is it the correct target?

NB: I made these changes to help the prose flow more naturally. I hope they are satisfactory.

All in all, a nice read, and comprehensive. Just a few minor issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes. I made the changes. As for the hegemony, Yamhad did not rule Mari or Carchemish, it was merely an influence similar to the one Russia have over, lets say, Belarus. So saying it ruled over them would be inaccurate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. If no simpler word can convey the exact meaning then it cannot be substituted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Cordani 2011 has a bad isbn number.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some serious issues that need to be addressed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ealdgyth. The ISBN is taken from the website of the publisher. Its the only ISBN See here. As for the Earwig's tool, its certainly mistaken. For example, It says that there is 85% chance of a violation for this source However, I pressed compare and no sentence from Qatna is identical to the source at all !!!!! See here. This tool is detecting the source's editor name who is also the head of the archaeologist team in the city and its normal for his name to be mentioned a lot in the article. Its also detecting words like "bronze age" !! but Qatna flourished in the Bronze age and its normal that the bronze age will be mentioned. The tool is also showing the full titles of sources listed in the sources section of the article as copyvio because they match the titles in the content section of the original sources !!!!!! I cant change the title of an article so it wont match the original title !!! Thats a not very reliable tool to be honest

The results of Earwig's tool should be neglected. They are false and I cant address them cause they are false. Any editor is welcome to do a manual check. I have provided links to all the sources with pages numbers and its very easy to compare sentences from the article with the original sources.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the ISBN, it's logged wrong in WorldCat, that's all I know. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just sentences that need to be paraphrased. Phrases are a concern too. We have to avoid too close paraphrasing, and while, yes, we can ignore names and titles of works, we need to be concerned with phrasing such as "the scarcity of written sources" "is based on the assumption that" "amber was imported from the Baltic region, while carnelian and lapis-lazuli" "to participate in rituals for". It's not a big crisis, but it does need some work to alleviate the highlighted phrases so they aren't so close. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I cant provide another ISBN since the publisher do not provide another one and I hope worldcat will fix their mistake. As for that tool, its hilighting the sentnce "is based on the assumption that" as being a copyvio of the 2007 source (the allegedly 85% chance of violation source). But, this sentence in the article is citated by a totally different source from 2012 ! After all, there is only one english language and some sentences are not paraphrased, even if a scholar decided to use a similar sentence in his article which is not being used in Qatna's article. Another example is the sentence: the Royal Palace of Qatna... I cant change that, its the name of the palace. I will fix the sentences you higlighted and try to see if there are other sentences of that nature. But that tool is really not the smartest.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ealdgyth, can you take a look now ? I changed all the sentences highlighted. However, some are general sentnces every one use, and some like "Late Bronze Age", "The royal palace"...etc cant be changed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, do you have anything you'd like to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really rather someone more versed in copyright problems look at the issues Earwig's tool brought up, honestly. I'm never sure how much things are "common phrases you can't avoid" and how much is getting too close to too-close-paraphrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I walked through the first three source comparisons in Earwig and, following the tweaks to phrases you mentioned and a couple I made myself, I feel pretty confident that most of the similarities are standard phrases along the lines the nominator mentioned. Tks for your diligence as always, Ealdgyth, the article is better for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My review was rather limited – the few points I raised were acted on promptly. I've not had time to return to the article, but I'm happy to go by other reviewers' supportive comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Brian. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine[edit]

I was informed by Ian Rose of this FAC. I've gone through it making mostly stylistic edits and some minor fixes, link and regnal dates additions, etc. Overall an excellent article, I cannot really think of anything missing, very informative, comprehensive, and balanced in portraying the differing views and theories of modern researchers. Very well done Attar-Aram syria! Unreservedly Support. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Constantine! Its flattering that it comes from an experienced editor like you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Like Ian, I've gone through the first three comparisons in Earwig and have not found any issues. The phrases that have been found would not, I don't think, cause any problems at all in terms of copyright as they are very generic and I think the high scores are just an unfortunate coincidence (and I notice that the same phrases come up in a few of the results, which further proves the point that these are just generic phrases). Therefore, I don't think we need be too worried in this case. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2017 [15].

History of the British penny (1714–1901)[edit]

Wehwalt (talk), Arwel Parry (talk)--20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the penny, but about the crucial time when it evolved from a small silver coin rarely seen to a fairly large bronze coin which it stayed until decimalisation. So it either fell through holes in pockets, or caused them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good but there's something I wanna know before supporting it. Is the citation from "Mintages" apply to all the numbers below? Other than that, good work. Ping me once you solved it or the citation explains it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tintor2 Yes, there no good way to hang a ref on these things. I just amended the ref to source the ones that say "unknown", the numbers were already sourced. Thanks for looking it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then leaving my support. Good luck with this nomination. Also, if you have free time I would appreciate if you could comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. I didn't nominate that article, but two fellows who worked hard on that did it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for that. I'll be happy to look in on it. I'm writing right now so allow a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I'm pleased to see this article, and I'm sure Uncle Matt would be very proud. I'm making a close review of the prose; here are my comments on the lead and the first couple of sections, with more to follow over the next day or two.

Lead
  • "Industrialist Matthew Boulton lobbied for a contract to produce official pennies at his Soho Mint in Birmingham and gained it in 1797;" You might simplify this to "In 1797 industrialist Matthew Boulton gained a contract to produce official pennies at his Soho Mint in Birmingham" - (four words saved, but every little counts)
  • "They were replaced by lighter bronze coins beginning in 1860, the "Bun penny", named for the hairstyle of Queen Victoria on it, was issued from then until 1894." Something not quite right with the punc. I think a semicolon rather than a comma after "1860" is required.
Silver penny (18th century)
  • "The beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain occurred..." → "The Hanoverian dynasty in Britain began..."
  • "during his time at the Royal Mint" – a basically unnecessary phrase that repeats words/phrases uses earlier in the line ("during his/the time", "Newton", "Mint"). And we have "at this time" later in the line. All a bit cluttery - suggest just delete the phrase. The prose reads perfectly well without it.
  • On further thought: do we need even the attenuated sentence "Newton worked to improve efficiency and accuracy"? It's a general observation, not followed up, and I think it can be assumed that Isaac would treat his duties with diligence.
  • You might elaborate note [a] to briefly cover why George I was described as "King of France" when he clearly wasn't.
  • redundant "as well" in third line of third paragraph.
I think that should stand. The penny, so far as is known, was always used, and sometimes the Maundy was entirely in pennies. I think "as well" is proper.
  • We seem to have got to "George II as an older man in 1740–1743" with no details of his accession, and no link either. For those without a sense of Britain's royal history this could be confusing. To keep it simple I would modify the previous sentence: "By 1727, when George II succeeded to the throne, the price of silver guaranteed that pennies were struck at a loss."
The introduction of George II, with link, is at the end of the second paragraph.
Yes, sorry I missed that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would not have been worth the 12 weeks..." → "would not have been worth the 12 weeks' work..."
  • In the sentence dealing with New Year's Day 25 March it might be worth piping a link to Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
  • Could the Maundy Money image clarify which is the silver penny? Top right?
Soho issues (1797—1807)
  • I find this sentence oddly constructed: "Many of the manufacturers of these tokens were in Birmingham, and industrialist Matthew Boulton both struck large numbers of tokens there and constructed the Soho Mint, the first to be powered by steam." A little smoother might be: "Many of the manufacturers of these tokens were found in Birmingham, where industrialist Matthew Boulton struck large numbers of tokens and also constructed the Soho Mint, the first to be powered by steam."
  • I'm wary of "It was not until" formulations, which might imply an unstated hidden agenda. Why not simply: "In 1797 the government gave Boulton a contract..."?
  • Link farthing at first mention
  • "In 1805, Boulton gained another contract..." A "further" contract would be better, as we've already had "another" earlier in the line.

Reading on with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done to date. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rest of my animadversions:

Regal issues (1825—1860)
  • "Finding its premises at the Tower of London too cramped and unsuited to the new technology, the Mint moved to a new building on Tower Hill, which first struck coins (for the East India Company) in 1811." The present construction implies that a building struck coins for the EIC. Suggest replace "which" with "and" .
  • "The coinage was by steam" – missing a verb: suggest "was created by steam power..."
  • "...that the copper coinage was seen to." "Seen to" seems slightly unencyclopedic. "that copper coinage recommenced"?
  • "George's pennies" → "George IV's pennies"
  • I recommend splitting the overlong sentence beginning "The final years of the copper penny..."
  • "These contracts were because of..." Again, it seems that a verb is required, e.g. "These contracts were issued because of..."
Bronze penny (from 1860)
  • "Thomas Graham, the Master of the Mint, persuaded William Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that.." When?
  • "the postman opened the parcel": "a postman", unless there was only one.
  • "There are a large number of varieties..." The grammar is equivocal. You can get round it with "There are many varieties..."
  • Punc issues in this sentence. The comma after "especially in 1860" should be a full stop
I've recast it slightly as I'd like to keep it as one sentence.
  • "and refers the reader to specialist books for further information" – not helpful to our readers. Suggest delete this phrase.
  • "The penny was given the new design beginning with 1895, and the new version was made current by a proclamation dated 11 May 1895." A bit clumsy. Suggest rewrite: "The new penny design was introduced in 1895, the new version being authorisedd by a proclamation dated 11 May of that year". Or similar.

That completes my prose check. Nothing of great consequence. I'll follow with a sources check if someone else doesn't get there first. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Jim. I've read Brian's comments above, and the only nitpick I'd add is that not until 1825 that pennies were struck for circulation might benefit from "again" after "were" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support, I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Publisher for Crellin? What makes this a high quality reliable source?
  • The "About Us" page says he is a published author on numismatics and prominent in the Australian numismatic community.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing Coins of England and the United Kingdom, Pre-decimal issues used as a source?
  • Ref. 48.
  • Well, that's not intuitive or obvious since ref 48 says "Spink" but the entry in the references says "Coins....". Remember, not everyone is going to understand the linking nor will it be present in a printed out book. (Nor, unfortunately, will it appear in the inevitable create-space knockoff of the article ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I"ve added the firm as author as well. That should take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Shall we meet here for the next FAC with the same issue? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short on time, so I won't do a point-by-point review. I see a lack of ALT text on a number of images as well as license issues: A photo of a coin needs 2 licenses, one for the coin design and the other for the photographer, but a number of files lack one of the licenses or are vague as to which license applies to which aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I've taken care of those things, thanks. There are two images uploaded by the photographer, that lack a license regarding the photograph, but when this has happened before, the feeling has been that uploading a photograph to Wikipedia shows intent to release the photograph according to the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coin from Uncle Jack 3-3-2010 5;58;03 AM1.JPG needs a license for the photo. File:Cartwheelrev.jpg does the OTRS statement apply to the photographer copyright? File:Wyon-bun-head-1869.jpg: needs a license for the photo as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the Cartwheel, the OTRS statement couldn't apply to the coin, which has long been out of copyright, so it has to (what else could it be?). The other two are the ones I spoke of, that were uploaded without a specific photographer copyright. As I said, this has been accepted as intent to release the photographs according to the Four Freedoms. Uploading an image to Wikipedia says you want to share it. I think the images are proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, sometimes people upload images and they don't own them. And we need to know under which conditions they are sharing images even when they own the copyright to them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when it's from their personal collection ... Anyway, I've swapped the Bun penny image for another and deleted Uncle Jack's contribution. The cartwheel I'm comfortable about the OTRS because I solicited the image 8 years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 [16].

6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia[edit]

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia which gained considerable notoriety at the start of the American Civil War. They were the first regiment to arrive in Washington in response to Lincoln's call for volunteer troops. En route, they were engaged in the Baltimore Riot during which the regiment became the first Union unit to lose casualties in action. The incident attracted world-wide attention as evidenced by the large number of newspaper depictions of the Baltimore Riot, some of which I've included in the article. I think their experience is a key piece of American Civil War history. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in pretty good shape. I have the following comments:

  • "three separate tours" - 'tours' is somewhat unclear, and the term Tour of duty was not used at the time of the US Civil War, and isn't appropriate as its usually applied to individuals. The later use of 'terms' is fine, and 'periods of service' or similar would also work.
  • Did this regiment exist before 1861? (eg, was it a reserve unit) - the text implies that this was the case. If so, please say when it was raised and what its status was prior to this year.
  • How was the regiment manned during its first and second periods of service? Did its member soldiers volunteer to be activated, were they compelled, or was the regiment filled with volunteers who weren't necessarily peacetime members of the regiment?
  • "seven of the ten original companies returned for the second tour" - as above, how did the manning situation work here? (also, a second use of 'tour')
  • "On May 13, the 6th Massachusetts joined its final expedition to the Blackwater River" - what the 'its' is here is unclear
  • "Battle of Carsville or the Battle of Holland House" - please link (if only red link) given it seems to have been a notable engagement from the description
  • "In the middle of the battle, when the 6th Massachusetts was driven back out of the woods, Private Joseph S.G. Sweatt of Company C perceived that several of his comrades had been hit and were left in the woods. He rushed back into the woods in an effort to pull them out." - 'woods' is repeated a bit too much here
  • "Sweatt was eventually released" - can you say when?
  • "fell back to Deserted House" - does 'Deserted House' need to be capitalised? (eg, was it a settlement or geographical feature rather than a single house?). If it was a settlement or notable geographic feature, a link should probably be added.
  • "prompted Lincoln to issue a call for 500,000 troops to serve a brief term of 100 days to bolster defenses around the capital" - does the source really say this? This is a vast number of troops, and far more than would be needed for this purpose (especially as it was recognised by the Union government that the raid was a one-off). I can't find any references attesting to this via a Google search, though Lincoln did call for 500,000 volunteers in July 1864 [17]. There also appears to have been a raising of short-service units in the spring of 1864 for rear duties tasks across the north, but not only for Washington's defences.
  • What was the status of the regiment between its periods of active service? The text implies that it was a manned reserve unit given that it had largely the same leadership, structure and personnel across each period of service.
  • What happened to the regiment after the war? Was it disbanded and never raised again? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks very much for the review of the article and comments. I've addressed them (as best I can given available info) as follows:
  • I agree "tour of duty" doesn't seem right to the modern reader in this context. It was a term at the time...the regimental history of the 5th Mass is titled "History of the 5th Massachusetts during its three tours of duty." But I've removed any use of "tours" and replaced as suggested with "term" or "period of service."
  • Regarding earlier uses of the designation "6th Mass," I meant to add clarification to the "Earlier units" section but forgot. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity. I added language and hope its clear...the name was used for other units but there was never a continuous 6th Massachusetts. So, I tried to indicate that the Rev War 6th Mass was a completely different entity than the 6th Mass that was organized in 1855 and served in the Civil War.
  • Regarding how it was manned, I've added language in several places indicating that they were volunteers, that soldiers were not compelled to reenlist, that some recruiting was needed for the subsequent terms, and that the rosters therefore changed but the sources indicate that the roster of officers remained substantially the same.
  • Reworded the ambiguous "its"
  • Added redlink for Battle of Carrsville up in the lead where it first appears.
  • Reworded to fix repetition of "woods"
  • I have tried hard to figure out when Sweatt was released. I wish I could say. At present I just don't know.
  • "Deserted House" was a place designation and is linked above in "Battle of Deserted House."
  • I took out the sentence about Early's raid and reworded the sentences about the July 1864 call for troops along the lines of what you've pointed out here.
  • I can't find any reference to the status of the regiment between active terms of service. I suspect they were completely inactive but I just don't have anything to go on there.
  • I added a brief section on a later 6th Massachusetts that served during the Spanish American War. Again, I've tried to indicate that these were different entities that happened to share the same designation.
I hope these edits mostly clear things up. Thanks again. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Baltimore_Riot_1861.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
  • File:6th_Massachusetts_Militia_attacked_in_Baltimore_1861.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Five_soldiers_in_Union_uniforms_of_the_6th_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Militia.jpg: what was the author's date of death and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks very much. I've addressed these issues as follows:
  • Included periods were captions are complete sentences
  • I could not find the origins of that colored engraving with the dead link. So I uploaded another, not colored, from a U.S. Army website. Published in 1861. I included links in the media file to the U.S. Army site and the same lithograph in the LOC (the latter shows all the publication info). I've replaced the dead link one with this version in the infobox.
  • File:6th_Massachusetts_Militia_attacked_in_Baltimore_1861.jpg, Oliver Pelton, engraver, died in 1882 [18]
  • File:Five_soldiers_in_Union_uniforms_of_the_6th_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Militia.jpg: I can't track down the author, date of death or the first publication date. Following the link to the LOC, I see that the photo was gifted outright to the LOC in 2010, which should put it in the public domain?

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, nice work. I have a few minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the References: " Life of Luther C. Ladd: the first martyr that fell a sacrifice to his country, in the city of Baltimore, on the 19th of April, 1861, etc.": the title should probably use title case capitalisation instead of sentence case, e.g. " Life of Luther C. Ladd: The First Martyr that Fell a Sacrifice to his Country, in the City of Baltimore, on the 19th of April, 1861, etc."
  • as above, "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861; A study of the War" --> " Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861; A Study of the War"
  • as above, "Regiments and Armories of Massachusetts. An historical narration of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia. With portraits and biographies of Officers, past and present, etc. Vol." --> " Regiments and Armories of Massachusetts. An Historical Narration of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia. With Portraits and Biographies of Officers, Past and Present, etc. Vol."
  • Benjamin F. Butler appears to be overlinked
  • Are there any later units that claim lineage from this one? I note that there are links to a later unit in the article, which is a great addition, but I also wonder if any more recent units draw campaign credit from this one?
  • this seems a little awkward grammatically: "The 6th Massachusetts served a third term in response to the emergency call for troops to defend Washington lasted 100 days...". Suggest that perhaps "lasted" should be changed to "lasting", or add "that" in front of "lasted";
  • "...he “double-quick.” This...": the quotation marks here should be straight quotes per MOS:CURLY
  • "Ladd died on Pratt street" --> "Ladd died on Pratt Street"
  • "Needham. 36 men of the 6th Massachusetts..." I believe the MOS prefers that sentences do not start with numerals, as such I'd suggest maybe something like this: "Needham. A total of 36 men of the 6th Massachusetts..."
  • "9-month term of service"? same same "90-day term of service" and "100-day term of service"?
  • "The 3rd Massachusetts formed a peripheral part...": do you mean the 6th here?
  • "Eight companies of the..." suggest linking Company (military unit)
  • "regiment lost 13 men killed or mortally wounded and 18 by disease..." --> "regiment lost 13 men killed or mortally wounded in combat and 18 by disease..."?
  • "for 100 days regiments" --> "for 100-day regiments"?
  • "They departed on July 20 for Washington, reaching the city on July 22 and posted on Arlington Heights in Fort C.F. Smith" --> suggest splitting this sentence after "July 22", and then joining the rest of the sentence with the next one.
Response: Thanks very much for these corrections and suggestions. I'm particularly glad you caught "3rd Massachusetts"...that was an "oops." I've incorporated all these suggestions with the exception of the "companies (military unit)" link as its linked in the lead of the article. The biggest change: I included the 181st Infantry Regiment (United States) in the "later units" section as they claim the 6th Mass in their lineage. Military heraldry seems a bit arbitrary to me, but who am I to question? If they claim it, I think it belongs in this article. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've always used the link once in the lead, and once in the body rule of thumb, but it's not a warstoper. Support for promotion as all of my comments have been addressed, or responded to. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

This article is in fine shape, and makes a interesting read. I have only a few queries/comments:

  • Governor Andrew should just be Governor Andrew after he's first mentioned by full title and name per WP:SURNAME
  • same for Follansbee
  • I made a couple of minor c/e tweaks to insert what looked like a missing word
  • I wonder if a disambiguation hatnote for the article is appropriate, given the other 6th Mass' that have existed? Perhaps pointing to the disambiguation page?
  • Battle of Bunker Hill is linked twice in the body
  • Given he commanded the regiment for two terms of service, I wonder whether Follansbee should be mentioned in the lead
  • the lead should probably mention that their duties at Fort Delaware were guarding POWs
  • the infobox should probably be simplified to just show the regiment as active 1861–1864, readers can read the article to get the exact dates of each term. It is a bit cluttered at present.
  • I'm interested in the history of the regiment before and after the war. It was first raised in peacetime in 1855, but when was it disbanded as a peacetime regiment?
  • add the oclc for Annual Register of the General Society of Colonial Wars and ISSN for Harper's weekly

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks very much. I've made these corrections. With regard to the dates in the infobox, I wonder if 1861-1864 would give the impression that it was one of the three year regiments at a quick glance? I've tried to make it less cluttered by just using the month and year. If that's still too cluttered, I can change it to the year range. With regard to before and after the war, there is very little information available in secondary sources. Hall's book addresses both to some degree. I've added a bit to the "Later units" section to explain that it persisted as a peacetime militia unit. My sense is that it remained a militia organization with little or no hiatus between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, but I can't find a source that expressly states that. I think to go any further than the general statements I've made in the "Earlier units" and "Later units" sections would be getting into primary research. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think those changes are fine. Just one final thing, there really should be no need for citations in the lead, as everything in it should be in the body and cited there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the citations. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes Massachusetts in the War from 1889 a high quality reliable source?
  • Same for Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861?
  • Same for A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion?
  • Same for Historical Sketch of the Old Sixth Regiment?
  • Same for The Life of John A. Andrew?
  • Same for A History of Massachusetts in the Civil War?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some concerns that probably need to be addressed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks very much. In reviewing information on authors, I realize there are a number of authorlinks I should have included. So, I’ve added those.
  • "Massachusetts in the Civil War," based mainly on regimental histories, was written by James L. Bowen, a veteran of the 37th Massachusetts. After the war, a journalist and magazine editor. Became commissioner of Massachusetts State Aid and Soldier Relief. Prominent citizen of Springfield, Massachusetts. According to his obit, "In 1882, Mr. Bowen was made historian of his regiment, and wrote "Massachusetts in the War, 1861-1865." He made a deep study into history of the civil conflict, and wrote many papers on the subject."[19] He was an authority.
  • "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April" was written by George William Brown, mayor of Baltimore during the riot.
  • "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion," was written by Frederick Henry Dyer. The Compendium was compiled primarily using the official records of the U.S. War Department. The section on Dyer’s Compendium cites Bell I. Wiley who wrote the introduction to the 1959 edition and asserted that veterans praised the Dyer’s work for its accuracy.
  • "Historical Sketch of the Old Sixth Regiment" was written by the chaplain of the regiment with the members of the regiment itself as the main audience. He states in the preface that he therefore strove for unvarnished accuracy.
  • "The Life of John A. Andrew" was based mainly on the official correspondence of the Governor. According to the introduction, Pearson was assisted in the research by some of the Governor’s closest friends. His is still the preeminent biography of Gov. John Andrew.
  • "A History of Massachusetts in the War" was written by William Schouler, Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the war. He had full charge of the militia and was responsible for organizing, equipping, training, transporting, paying, supplying Massachusetts soldiers. Probably no greater authority on the subject.
  • Are there no more recent works that cover the regiment? Because, quite honestly, the practice of history has moved on quite a bit since the late 1800s and new sources are available. These are all written by amateur historians, if you can even call them amateurs. We require high quality sources at FAC, and works written over a 100 years ago by non-historians are going to be difficult to show they are high quality. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely newer works which briefly reference the 6th Massachusetts but newer works won't offer the depth of detail provided by sources like Hanson and Bowen. And those newer works which discuss the 6th Massachusetts will almost certainly cite Hanson and others I've cited here. So I generally choose to eliminate the middle-man and go right to the main authority on the subject...which in this case is the official regimental history written by Hanson. Yes, there indeed have been just a few advances in the historical profession, believe me, I'm intimately aware of that. Nonetheless, I feel these are absolutely solid sources. And I'm not alone. A quick search on Google Books shows that John Hanson's book on the "Old Sixth" is cited by Stephen W. Sears, Gary Gallagher, Leon Litwack, and Mark Neeley, to name a few. "Massachusetts in the War" and other works by James L. Bowen are cited by James M. McPherson (in his Pulitzer Prize winning book), Bradley Gottfried, David J. Eicher, and Harry Pfanz. If he's good enough for McPherson...The likes of Bowen, Hanson and Schouler may not have been professional historians but they were extraordinarily accomplished and respected professionals who were the highest of authorities on this subject. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Hi. I've done some work to address the issue of these older sources:
  • I eliminated half of them (Schouler, Brown, and Pearson), replacing those citations by citing other more recent works instead.
  • I've added as references some recent works which cover the 6th Mass (O'Connor, Puleo and Berenson). I also realized that I really underutilized Wills (a 2001 source that I only cited once). He's about the only recent writer who has some good detail on the 6th Mass and their 9-month second enlistment, so I was able to replace many of the citations of older works in those sections with Wills. I also added a recent source (Temple) who discusses the 6th Mass at Fort Delaware.
  • Hanson, Bowen and Dyer have info on the 6th Mass that can't be found anywhere else. But I've tried to reduce my reliance on them in many instances by citing new sources instead (O'Connor, Puleo and Berenson).
I hope this mitigates/remedies these source issues. Thanks very much again for your comments. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement, but its always a concern to rely on these older sources - they weren't trained historians and they viewed history differently than we do now. I'm not going to oppose, but it is a concern that more modern historians haven't covered the information - is it because they trust these regimental histories or is it because they don't think it's notable? Or is it because they aren't including the information because they don't trust the regimental histories and have concluded the events didn't happen that way? Do you see the concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I think the fact that more recent historians haven't covered much of this has a good deal to do with the way history is written now, focusing more broadly on larger campaigns or the entire war, rarely a single regiment. I suppose notability is involved there. The 6th Mass is one of the most notable regiments I know of due to their experience in Baltimore and gets at least a quick mention (or a few pages) in just about every survey of the full war I've picked up. Are they as notable for their fairly uneventful second term in Virginia? Not so much. I definitely don't think the information isn't getting repeated due to any lack of trust in those older sources. In fact, those brief mentions of the Baltimore Riot almost always cite Hanson. So, good historians trust him (and Bowen). I guess I just keep coming back to the fact that regimental histories like Hanson's were typically hugely vetted works (roughly a thousand men who were actually there would be picking apart every detail) usually written by someone chosen by a regimental association who reviewed the work. So, it's an old source, no doubt, but I really feel it is solidly reliable.Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some copy edits which I think address the issues turned up by Earwig.
Hope this addresses your questions. Thanks very much. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Historical Perspective 2, suggest you ping Ealdgyth again to see if she's happy with your responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop a note on her talk page. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties...

  • I copyedited so pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or simply if you disagree with my changes. Considering the regiment didn't see a huge amount of action, I found the article quite interesting to read and easy to comprehend -- well done.
  • A few outstanding points:
    • Re. the infobox: I think we just say United States rather than United States of America; also I generally expect notable commanders to be worthy of their own article in WP.
    • Re. "spring of 1864", we should avoid seasonal references -- do we know the month?
    • Can you expand a little on just how the 6th "openly condemned" abuses at Fort Delaware?

I daresay I'll be supporting once these and the sourcing questions are finalised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks very much for your comments and the copy edits. Those were very helpful and look good to me. I've made those adjustments to the infobox (took out Follansbee) and specified May 1864. I can't, unfortunately, expand much on "openly condemned." That source doesn't elaborate. I went to the primary source he cited which states that the previous unit was particularly harsh and the 6th Mass "spoke contemptuously of the actions of their predecessors." It's a memoir, though, and I don't think I can cite it here. So, I tried to specify a bit as to what the previous poor treatment entailed. If "condemned" is too vague a statement, I'll certainly take out that sentence. As to sources, I have done my best to address the concerns with changes outlined above. Any suggestions in that regard would be appreciated. Many thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I just tweaked a little. Re. sources, concur with PM's suggestion above -- will keep an eye on developments. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted final exchange re. sourcing and am prepared to support promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Ealdgyth is relatively happy with the sourcing, but raises a few interesting points about using older sources in history articles. I must confess, coming from a history background, that I share some of her concerns with this general practice. However, this is not the only article to be sourced in such a way and I'm not a fan of using individual FACs as "test cases", so I don't think it would be fair to hold this up any longer. However, it may be worth discussing further at some point at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2017 [20].

On the Mindless Menace of Violence[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "On the Mindless Menace of Violence", a speech delivered by United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. The speech has been greatly overshadowed by the famous remarks Kennedy delivered the night before in Indianapolis. Regardless, it was still considered by two of Kennedy's speechwriters, Jeff Greenfield and Frank Mankiewicz, and two prominent journalists, David Halberstam and Jack Newfield, to be one of the senator's best (it's my personal favorite, quite frankly). I've pulled together various sources to complete this article, including several journal and magazine pieces, as well as one book strictly devoted to analysis of the speech. At this point there are few improvements I see I could make without the suggestion of other editors. Other than that, I think it is ready for FA status. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rkennedy05.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader didn't give me many details but forwarded me to the original photographer, who I have now contacted to confirm the copyright status of the photo. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have received a reply from the creator of the photo, Evan Freed. I had emailed him "According to the license, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." Can you confirm that this is true[...]?" He responded, "I can confirm all on that." I also asked if he knew when/where/how it was originally published, which he didn't respond to, but said, "Give me a call." How should I proceed? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel comfortable doing so you could call him, but his statement should be sufficient for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • "and presidential candidate" - is this perhaps the right description, given that he had yet to receive the actual Democratic nomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""On the Mindless Menace of Violence" was a speech given by United States Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy at the Sheraton-Cleveland Hotel before the City Club of Cleveland on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. " This is quite a long opening sentence. How about cutting it into two, shorter chunks. ""On the Mindless Menace of Violence" was a speech given by United States Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. He delivered it in front of the City Club of Cleveland at the Sheraton-Cleveland Hotel on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.."? Or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On April 4 civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated" - King's full name has already been mentioned, and the prose does appear to assume a fair bit of information on the behalf of the reader. Perhaps "On April 4, King—a prominent African-American civil rights leader—was assassinated" or something of that nature? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kennedy dismissed politics" - I'm not sure that this is the best way to describe what Kennedy was saying. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conditions in America" - I would definitely use "United States" over "America" here, given that the latter is also used in parts of Latin America to refer to the two American continents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the opening paragraph of "Background", the full name of "Martin Luther King Jr" appears three times. Only the first time is necessary; the others would probably work better as just "King". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " aide James Tolan and took place in his room.[" - Does this mean Tolan's room or Kennedy's room? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "turned heated as leaders began accusing " - perhaps this would read more smoothly as "became heated as leaders accused"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "replied. "Well," - why the full stop? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a call Kennedy from on " - "a call from Kennedy on" Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Americans, especially regardless of race" - especially regardless? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described how America", "violence in America would persist" - again, I'd change this to "United States". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kennedy listed no specific programs and gave no specific solutions to the problems at hand,[19] as such would not bring an end to violence.[35]" - what does the latter part of this sentence mean? I think that it could be reworded for clarity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1999 in Colorado" - "in... in". Let's reword this.
  • Perhaps an image of Martin Luther King Jr would be a good addition to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Midnightblueowl:

  1. I don't feel like that statement is inaccurate, and I'm not sure how it could be rephrased. He was campaigning for the presidency, even if it was without the endorsement of the Democratic Party.
  2. Done.
  3. Done.
  4. Agreed. Revised as "Speaking for only ten minutes before 2,200 people, Kennedy outlined his view on violence in American society. He criticized both the rioters..."
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Revised to now say the meeting "took place in Tolan's room."
  8. Done.
  9. Corrected.
  10. Done.
  11. Removed "especially".
  12. Done.
  13. Revised as "Kennedy listed no specific programs or proposals to address the problems at hand, as he believed there was no single solution that would bring an end to violence."
  14. Revised as "In 1999, Marian Wright Edelman delivered a speech in Colorado during which she quoted Kennedy's address."
  15. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indy. On the basis of the prose, I am happy to offer my Support for this article becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I've copyedited a bit; fee free to revert if I made a mess of anything. Murphy is out of alphabetical order in the sources; can you fix that? Otherwise this looks FA-quality to me, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Mike Christie:

  • Fixed the source listing.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

  • Aftermath: There's one date here that is formatted differently than the others (10 April). As this is an article on an American subject, I'd suggest switching this to April 10, as opposed to the current international-style formatting.
  • The full Drury and Crouch cite has all caps in the title that need to be fixed (the two dates). Other than those couple minor points, the article looks really good. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Giants2008:

  1. Done.
  2. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – A very engaging article, which I think meets FA standards quite comfortably. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Has there been a source review for reliability/formatting? If not you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • What makes History Is Now Magazine a reliable source?
  • For consistency's sake, should the Hayes, Times Recorder, Daily Reporter sources have an accessdate to match other online news/magazine source formatting?
  • References look good. ceranthor 00:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Ceranthor:

  1. History Is Now Magazine is, according to its site, "a group of friends, amateur historians, who have always been fascinated by and passionate about history." As for their crowd of writers, "Anybody who can write with flair, has a brain, and a knowledge of history can write for us – no experience is required!" Some of their staff is paid, some isn't. The magazine they produce currently isn't in circulation, but they still post articles on their website, produce podcasts, and publish books (under their own press). Though they're focus is in American and broad international history, they are based in the UK with a phone number and mailing address. The best I can use to argue for its reliability is inclusion of a list of sources used appended at the end of each article, including the one I cited. I've removed this source and used info provided by the Vital Speeches of the Day, a more established magazine/organization.
  2. I've added an access date for Hayes. As for the Times Recorder and Daily Reporter, both of those were scans of prints. I didn't add an access date because they were print. If this is unacceptable than I can pinpoint the access dates I just thought it was only customary to add such dates for online sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support then. Sorry, didn't realize they were print sources. ceranthor 12:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 [21].

Beograd-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beograd class are a classic example of the fates of World War II Yugoslav ships. The class consisted of three destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the lead-up to World War II. Two were captured when the Axis powers invaded in April 1941, but the other (Zagreb) was blown up by two officers who were killed in the explosions. The others were put into service by the Italians, who used them mainly on the North Africa convoys. One was lost in their hands, but the other was taken over by the Germans when the Italian surrendered in September 1943. It wasn't sunk until late in the war. In the late 1960s, a French film was made about the scuttling of Zagreb, and in the early 1970s the two officers who scuttled her were posthumously awarded the Order of the People's Hero by Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

Their standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), and they displaced 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load - looks funny going noun/verb. Why not, " Their standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load" or something like it.
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it sank close to shore, and some of the crew swam to safety. - err, if only one died, didn't all the rest swim to safety...?
They may have used the lifeboats, but the sources don't say.
Fair point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reads ok. I did have more questions about completeness but note that daughter articles are comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Cas Liber. Class articles tend to be very much a summary rather than in depth about each ship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, reads well and appears comprehensive, though this is an area I know very little about, hence I tentatively support this as a lay reader. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited as usual so let me know any concerns. Not a big article but I appreciate that the ships didn't see a lot of action. Outstanding points:

  • "the only modern sea-going vessels left to the KSCS were 12 torpedo boats, and they had to build their naval forces from scratch -- firstly, as it's one kingdom I'd expect "it had to build its naval forces"; secondly, if it had 12 boats, is it really building from scratch or is it more like building its major ship fleet from scratch?
  • I've tweaked it to "almost from scratch", as 12 torpedo boats aren't exactly a significant asset.
  • FN17 seems to be formatted oddly but not sure how to fix it as it's SFN. Actually I'd prefer it if Nikkimaria checked over the formatting of the sources overall...
  • There has been a recent dubious change to the sfn template which has screwed up the way I (and others) have been using it for newspapers and news websites, throwing up an ampersand between the newspaper and date of issue. I've used an "unauthorised" workaround to address it for now.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks for those changes, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing (checked by Nikki at MilHist ACR) looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, for the c/e, review and image check. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Maritime Museum is a publisher not a work
  • The work is the webpage "World War I and II". I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you mean the shortened footnote?
  • No - the full cite is using |website= for the museum name, where it should use |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Niehorster a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a PhD in history and several books on orders of battle published by The Military Press and other publishers, and held by libraries like the University of Cambridge, Australian Defence Force Academy, US Air Force Academy etc. I've found him to be highly accurate and consistent with other sources for order of battle information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: My comments have been addressed, and I thinkthe re-worded section is a definite improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very long sentence starts off the Background section. Of the several obvious places to split this, "almost from scratch.[2] The name of the state" seems like the most natural.
  • Done.
  • "planned half-flotilla was ever built.[4] Despite the fact that a half-flotilla of large destroyers" - one or the other "half-flotilla"s is redundant.
  • I've rewritten that bit, see what you think?
  • " three ships had only been in commission for a short time" - this could mean a couple of things. Were they fully active, or in some intermediate state? Had they all gone through their shakedowns by this point?
  • I had neglected to link ship commissioning, now done.
  • "arrested pending an investigation.[17] When Yugoslavia " A para-split at this point seems well advised.
  • Good idea, done.
  • "scuttled on 1 May.[13][14] In 1967, a French film" - and here.
  • Done.

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Maury! Let me know what you think about the rewording of those sentences. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at A-class, and am happy with the quality. The only nitpick I'll make now is there's a duplicate link to Division (naval) in the service history section. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for taking another look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, with fourthree supports, and an image and source review. Can I have dispensation to put another one up please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been rather snowed under in RL. As I'm promoting now, I suspect the point is moot! Sorry again for not getting back to you. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2017 [22].

Starship Troopers[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a hugely popular, hugely influential, and hugely controversial science fiction novel from 1959. It has been through a GA review, and has also had its reception section looked over by Mike Christie, who knows what's what with science-fiction. Since then I've been over the prose again, and have added more views from commentators to the article. Between the large number of sci-fi authors and scholars, I believe I have covered every significant theme among reliable sources. I think I am also supposed to disclose that I am a Wikicup participant. Have at it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley[edit]

This will probably be a quick review. Anyways, here goes:

  • In the sentence "The novel explores the theme of coming-of-age, and also critiques U.S. society of the 1950s, arguing that a lack of discipline had led to a moral decline, and advocating corporal and capital punishment", who is doing the "advocating"?
    The novel itself/Heinlein. "The novel explores....arguing that...and advocating..." How may I clarify this?
Removing the comma would certainly help, as one could interpret it as "The novel explores...critiques U.S. society of the 1950s...and advocating..." But, I guess that still means that the novel would apply to advocating. Regardless, it is a bit confusing when first reading. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording: does this help?
  • Citations in the lead? Is there any reason for this?
    In dealing with controversial material (which I do a lot of) I find it generally helpful to have lead citations, where these may be found for the summary style statements that the lead generally contains. Otherwise, you spend a very substantial amount of time reinstating content that drive-by editors have removed saying "unsourced," or removing cn tags for that material.
Sounds good, but in that case, could you reduce the number of citations to one each and only for the controversial stuff? Trust me, nobody will add any cn tags more than that—and if they do, you just revert them and explain why. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My experience says otherwise, but okay. I've trimmed the refs.
  • Some stuff needs to be fixed per MOS:LQ. For example, "Ken MacLeodstated that 'the political strand in [science fiction] can be described as a dialogue with Heinlein.'" to "Ken MacLeodstated that 'the political strand in [science fiction] can be described as a dialogue with Heinlein'."
    I'm not certain about this: MOS:LQ, and what I remember of high-school grammar, says that if the punctuation was part of the quote, then it should be included within the quotation marks. As far as I can tell, I have adhered to this: MacLeod is ending his sentence there, for instance.
Oh, well I'm a true idiot. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all for now. Maybe I will comment more, I don't know. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: I've responded to your points. Vanamonde (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: I've responded, FYI. Vanamonde (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Comment I'm mostly looking at images (see below), but I wanted to flag for your attention MOS issues (eg. WP:NOTUSA), inconsistencies in citation formatting (eg. some works are italicized and others not), and Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Limitations. These should be addressed before the article is promoted. Also, at the time this work was first published the ISBN system did not exist - typically in these cases one wouldn't be included in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nikkimaria: I have addressed most of your issues. I will double check the italicization issues, but honestly I've used the citation templates in every case without introducing extra italicization of my own, so not sure what I can do here...Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:StarshipSoldier.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Starship_Troopers_(novel).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added archive links for both images. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I've read the book, I have the book, I've seen the movie, I have opinions. A few comments:

Wehwalt, good to see you here. I was hoping to have you review this. I'll do my best with your suggestions.
  • "It is one of the only Heinlein novels which intersperses his typical linear narrative structure with a series of flashbacks." I would say "few", not "only".
  • Done.
  • "Rico is depicted as a man of Filipino ancestry, although there has been disagreement on this matter among fans." It might be worth noting this is not made clear until the end of the novel.
  • Hmm. I'm not too happy doing this, because there aren't any sources that mention this...d'you think the novel is enough of a source?
I wouldn't use the novel as a source to say something that would effectively require reading the book to prove. So I'll drop this.
  • "Carmencita Ibanez" My edition of the book has the last name as Ibañez. Also, Rico refers to her as "Carmen" when he re-encounters her during OCS, making it likely that "Carmencita" is a childhood nickname.
  • Folks don't seem to be clear on this, do they? The novel uses "Carmencita" four times and "Carmen" 12 times, but never in a context that would make it absolutely clear which is the nickname...indeed from the first use, it seems as though "carmen" may have been intended as the nickname. Based on common sense, though, I've gone along with your suggestion.
  • "The letter Rico receives from Dubois, partly responsible for Rico "crossing the hump" with his training, is shown as a turning point in his development.[19] This is especially true of the parts of his training that involve indoctrination," The "This" that starts the second sentence is a bit unclear. Are they meant to be turning points? I don't think they are all turning points. It was only in the incident with the Dubois letter that Rico rejects a course of action to leave the military. They do help Rico understand the moral framework that underlies his society and why when told he should go out and shoot bugs, he should go out and shoot bugs.
  • I think this was a case of a sentence being unintentionally moved by later additions. I've reorganized it a little. Does it read better now?
  • "Rico, who does poorly in school," when he meets Mr. Weiss, the placement officer, Rico's pleased by Weiss having his high school transcript, "I had stood high enough without standing so high as to be marked as a greasy grind". He's also slated for Harvard Business School.
  • I guess you're right about that part, it struck me as odd, too. The trouble is this is the Magill source speaking. I've removed that phrase at the moment, let me know if it does not read well.
  • "The novel is also highly controversial. Heinlein scholar James Gifford called it one of the most controversial science fiction books ever published.[4][3]" refs in wrong order. Also "Starship Troopers has been acknowledged as one of the best known and most influential works of science fiction.[10][2][21]" and "Heinlein's discussions of his political beliefs were criticized as being "didactic",[78][11][79] " and probably more given how many reference chains you use.
  • Thanks for pointing that out. It's a consequence, I think, of significant revisions being made to the text. I used search for the string "][", so I should have got them all.
  • The section marked Reception says almost nothing about how it was reviewed in 1959.
  • That's not quite true: I use a number of views expressed in the PITFCS debate, which are from the period 1959 to 1961. The earliest in this article is, I think, from February 1960; between two and three months after the publication of the full-length book in December 1959.
  • Drop in a few more dates then. What about the regular SF magazines, did they review it?
  • I'd added a few per your comment below; I've added a few more now. I'm sure the mainstream SF magazines did review it, but that material has generally been swamped by the flood from high-profile authors and scholarly sources. Nonetheless, there are some in here; the "Ten books of 1959" comes from Damon Knight in F&SF; and Anthony Boucher founded the Magazine of SF, though his review is not from there. If you think it a problem, I'll try to find more; though the reception section's pretty beefy already.
  • "A review in The Herald Tribune " probably the full name of the newspaper should be given.
  • Done.
  • "Panshin, a veteran of the peacetime military, argued that Heinlein glossed over the reality of military life, and that the Terran Federation-Arachnid conflict existed simply because, "Starship troopers are not half so glorious sitting on their butts polishing their weapons for the tenth time for lack of anything else to do."[83] Some of Rico's dialogue in the novel suggests that the novel is contemptuous of a government without an active military.[84]" Doesn't Rico Sr. make clear in the "trip to Mars" conversation that the Terran Federation has never fought a war? Do the sources consider that?
  • I think Rico senior says that the TF has not fought a war for a while. In general, though, even the sources that are broadly supportive of Heinlein do not appear to mention that fact.
  • I looked at it and what he says is ambiguous. In fact, it's more suggestive of war in Rico Sr's memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suvin called it an example of agitprop in favor of military values," this seems an unsourced fragment.
  • Neglected to duplicate the ref.
  • I haven't read through the entire article yet, but I'm surprised not to see discussion of the symbolism of the fact that Johnny is named "Rico".
  • This isn't in any of the sources that I have seen; what are you referring to?
  • Rico means "Rich" in Spanish, and he was rich (likely still is).
  • Yeah that's beyond my Spanish abilities (not more than 50 words). I've looked, though, and I cannot find sources which mention this; the only one I've found so far is a reading guide from the St. Louis public library.
  • Well, never mind then. Pretty sure I've read that somewhere though. I read through whatever analyses of Heinlein my university library had in the 1980s, so it may be an outdated view.
  • You don't very often use dates to say when the commentary on the book occurred. You're closer to the sources than I am, but I have the sense that there's more hostility to the novel today than in Heinlein's lifetime, but it's hard to separate out when these things were said, especially since it's sometimes sort of hidden behind "commentators say" or the like.
  • Fair point. I've added dates in a few more places.
  • More's always welcome :)
  • You sort of dance around the point, but in the Race/gender section, I would more clearly state that the Mobile Infantry is entirely male.
  • Done.
  • "Though Rico says he finds women "marvelous", he shows no desire for sexual activity; the war seems to have subsumed sex in this respect." This is 1959, and Stranger hadn't happened yet. There wasn't much sex in SF in 1959.
  • Huh, that's a point that had escaped me. The Magill source is quite insistent about it, though...
  • Well, so be it then.
  • "Despite the gestures towards women's equality, women are still objects, to be protected, and to fight wars over." This is very opiniony, and it's terribly broad (no pun intended) to be based on a 1979 book.
  • I've added in-text attribution. Let me know if that is enough, or whether you'd rather I removed it altogether.
  • " compares the battle room in Ender's Game to Heinlein's prosthetic suits" This isn't terribly clear. It's likely not the battle room itself, but the uniforms worn by the child-soldiers that can "freeze" them if hit by the "weapons".
  • Actually this is the battle room itself; Hantke makes that quite clear. "The Battle Room appears to be, for now, the last incarnation of the combat prosthesis whose development I have been tracing from Starship Troopers on." There's a lot more of this, a page or more. If this is rather too highbrow for Wikipedia (I'm not sure I understand it myself...) I could just remove that bit.
  • No, I'd let it stand.
  • "dedicates his efforts to protection his erstwhile enemies" possibly "devotes his efforts to protect his onetime enemies. I would also pipe somewhere to Ender Wiggin. If the source mentions that both enemies are insectoid (after all, "buggers"?), that is worth including. I'm not sure the word "enemies" is the right word given Ender doesn't know he's fighting real beings and from what I recall, the Hive Queen makes it clear that the Buggers did not hate Ender.
  • I've added the link, and used "targets" in place of "enemies".
  • The last three subsections of the article are in the form of bulleted lists. I would say you should stay with straight prose.
  • alright.
  • I would make clearer that Uchū no Senshi was based on Starship Troopers.
  • Added a little.
  • The second in that bulleted list is unsourced.
  • It hasn't really received too much attention in mainstream sources. I've added sources for now, but I'd like your opinion on whether axing that bullet altogether isn't the best option.
  • Feel free. I don't consider game adaptions etc 100 percent necessary to the article.
  • Removed. Given that the last three sub-sections of adaptations are now quite short, I'm wondering if it would make more sense to bring them together into an "Other media" section.
  • I would favor that. This article is about the book, and lumping them together de-emphasizes it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combined.
  • The reference in the bulleted list to Starship Troopers: Invasion is introduced, including link, as if it had not been mentioned before when in fact it is mentioned a couple of paragraphs before. I would straighten this out.
  • Done.
  • You are not consistent on whether you italicize the names of games.
  • Fixed.
  • That's it for now. Ping me when you want me to give it a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: I believe I have either fixed or responded to all the points you have raised. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I will give its second look today or tomorrow. Just replying for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take your time. Just so you know, I've responded to your responses. Vanamonde (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second read. I'm doing some hands-on editing.
  • "Rico enters Officer Candidate School for a second course of training, including further courses in "History and Moral Philosophy"." This might mistakenly imply to the reader that Rico had History and Moral Philosophy during his first course of training, since you haven't mentioned the course yet.
  • I've added a mention earlier, with Dubois' letter
  • You mention that Heinlein wrote 13 Scribner's juveniles. The box at the foot of the article lists only twelve. Possibly Podkayne, but that was later and not Scribner's.
  • Hmm. I hadn't counted, I'd just gone off of Gifford; so I've just gone with "several", because saying 12 and citing 13 is dodgy.
  • "His training, both at boot camp and at officer candidate school," I'm minded to say that since you capitalize Officer Candidate School in the plot summary you should do so here, but I can see it either way since a plot summary is a bit different from the rest of the article.
  • Well in my head this was the generic, as with boot camp, but I too can see it both ways..
  • "German soldiers in the First World War." I'd go with "World War I" here since it is the more usual American style.
  • Done.
  • "Heinlein's young protagonists attain manhood by confronting a hostile "wilderness" in space." Very true, but you should make it clear that you're not just talking about Starship Troopers here.
  • Tweaked.
  • "The concept of the American frontier is also related to the coming-of-age theme. Heinlein's young protagonists attain manhood by confronting a hostile "wilderness" in space. Coming-of-age in a military, alien context is a common theme in Heinlein's earlier works as well.[66] Rico's coming of age has also been described as being related to his relationship with his father;" these hyphens can be tricky but the second and third are both nouns. Shouldn't they be hyphenated the same? (or you could replace the "Rico's coming of age" with "Rico's journey to maturity" or similar, which would spare the phrase from too much wear on the tires.
  • I've gone with the hyphens, since I've used journey later in the sentence.
  • "Rico's history teacher" I would spell out History and Moral Philosophy.
  • Done.
  • She went on to argue "Heinlein was absolutely at his peak when he wrote this in 1959. He had so much technical stylistic mastery of the craft of writing science fiction that he could [tell the story "backwards and in high heels"] and get away with it."[18] I don't quite see what you're doing here. First, single bracket words convey to me you're supplying words needed to convey a quote's meaning. This seems to be far more than that and include even a quote (which, in allusion to Hchc's comment below, should properly be in single quotes :)
  • Yeah that's just an unintentional error on my part: [tell the story] is all that should have been in square brackets.
  • "and that only retired veterans could vote or hold office" Is it necessary to say this? It's not contradicted by the critics, and Rico says (the musings after his conversation with Ace about going career) "as long as you were still in uniform you weren't entitled to vote". (p. 127 of my hardcover)
  • You're right, not needed.
  • "There has been disagreement among commentators over whether the "Federal Service" required in the book is service in the military and its support systems, or work in any government service. Though Heinlein himself has stated the latter is true, most analyses of the text have supported the former position.[4]" Isn't this effectively a duplicate of what is stated (likely better) under Allegations of Fascism? I think you should consider merging the two one place or the other (or simply cut this).
  • Fair enough: I've cut it. You're right, it's rather repetitive. I've also moved the remainder of the paragraph up a bit.
Hope to finish later today. Don't take the length of this review as reflective. You've done a fine job here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with both protagonists initially bent on destroying insect-like aliens" I don't think that's true of Ender who thinks that if he is to fight in the war, it will be many years in the future, meantime Dragon Army needs to win its next battle. I might phrase it in terms of humanity being at war against the insectoids. I'd use "against" rather than "with", considering what develops concerning the Buggers.
  • True. Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Many thanks, as always. I've addressed all your comments, I believe. If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at Ealdgyth's source comments below? I got the impression she wanted more eyes on it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done on a difficult subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • The url is simply a hosting site. The author is described by the Heinlein society as among the first Heinlein scholars. His work on Heinlein, including this particular analysis, has been cited by other scholarly sources: see [23], [24]. Potentially a little close to the Heinlein society, which is why I have tried to limit its use to cases where it does not seem to be promoting the author.
  • Yeah, same guy. Alexei Panshin. Writer, science fiction critic, influential enough to have been cited frequently. The book in question has 63 citations on google scholar, which is probably under counting a bit. Not sure why those were not sfn citations, though. Fixed that.
  • It's an online news portal for science-related topics, including science fiction; analogous, for instance, to Salon. It's not critical to the article, though, so if you'd rather I removed it, I will do so.
  • Just for the record, this has been removed following Ian Rose's comments below.
  • It's an interview with Steakley; therefore, for Steakley's own opinion, it's a reliable source. Steakley himself is a Sci-Fi author, whose work is notable enough to have an article; therefore, if he says in an interview that it was directly influenced by Starship Troopers, that seems worth including.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Many thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hchc2009[edit]

  • Nice work. Some minor points below...
  • Some inconsistency in the use of single and double speechmarks, e.g. "Mico commands a platoon during 'Operation Royalty': a raid to capture members of the Arachnid' 'brain caste' and 'queens'", but "serving with the platoon known as "Rasczak's Roughnecks"."
  • Thanks for pointing this out: I've always been a bit doubtful about quotation styles. I believe I have fixed the inconsistancy.
  • I'd normally expect quotes to be given in-line attribution, which doesn't always happen, e.g. "the discussion of political views is a recurring feature of the "ideologically intense" book" - this doesn't explain who actually said the line. In contrast, see "In a 2009 retrospective, Jo Walton wrote that Starship Troopers was "military SF done extremely well."" Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used a quote without the author's name, instead choosing to cite at the end of that sentence fragment, just to break up the style a bit; otherwise, we have a lot of "he said, she said" going on. If you think it's an issue, I can use in-text attribution in this case as well.
  • NB: I'm generally familiar with the literature around this novel, and the account/analysis here seems balanced and complete. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Casliber[edit]

  • Comments a nice read. Only quibble is para 2 of Reception section. First sentence is redundant - as "controversial/y" is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences. Some of the analysis strikes me at first impression as slightly repetitive but on looking again I can't find any bits specifically repeated so not actionable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Casliber: That's a fair point. I've removed Gifford's statement; probably not adding much, anyhow; and rephrased the first sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties -- FWIW I've read this, and Haldeman's The Forever War, and seen the Paul Verhoeven film, and like them all for different reasons... ;-)

  • Copyedited so pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or simply if you disagree with my wording -- for the most part I found the prose very engaging. Some outstanding points:
    • Thanks: I've looked over all of your changes, and I don't take issue with any of them.
    • The manuscript was rejected, prompting Heinlein to cease writing juvenile fiction for Scribner, end his association with the publisher completely, and resume writing books with adult themes. -- if he ended his association with the publisher completely, isn't it redundant to say he stopped writing juvenile fiction for them?
      • You're right. I've removed that fragment.
    • In Setting, I think you need to briefly describe what the Skinnies are like -- the uninitiated reader gets an idea of what the Bugs are like, but doesn't really get a feel for the Skinnies.
      • I'd disagree with you there, actually; the Skinnies play such a trivial role in the whole story. The reviewers mostly ignore them, or mention them in passing; they are only "on screen" in the first chapter of the novel; the movie leaves them out; etc etc. If this were not enough, I've have to use the novel itself for any material I add; there just isn't substance about them in the reviews.
        • Okay, I won't lose sleep over that one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • the discussion of political views is a recurring feature of the "ideologically intense" book, which has been categorized as a "philosophical novel" -- I think it's generally best to attribute inline quotes, even if only phrases; who describes it as "ideologically intense" and a "philosophical novel"?
      • I resisted this above, but if two reviewers are saying something I better take it seriously :) I've added in text attribution in a couple of places, and paraphrased the quotation in another. I'd really not do it for the "overzealous" because it would really disrupt the text; but if you insist, I could remove that descriptor altogether.
        • I'd probably let it ride if there was only one citation for that sentence but with two it seems to muddy the waters even more -- I don't think it'd hurt too much to lose that descriptor and leave the rest of the sentence as is... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, removed.
    • Again, who exactly describes praise of the military and approval of violence as "overzealous" or suggested that Heinlein is a "fanatical warmongering fascist"? I think we should also know, without having to investigate the sources, who (or what publication) considers the book "highly readable" and as having "exciting military episodes".
      • See above.
  • I don't write book articles myself but the structure seems fine, as does the level of detail.
  • Re. tone, the novel is certainly one of the most controversial in all sf, and a good deal of material on this is included, but I really didn't come away with a particular feeling for where the editor's sympathies might lie, which is as it should be.

That's it for now -- I may take another pass and post other comments if they come to mind, but essentially I think this is good work on a tough subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, just looking over the source review above, I'm pretty happy with the rationales provided for using most of the sources questioned, the only one that wasn't true for is Peterson -- the article is an interesting take on the book, so in a way I'd be sorry to see it go, but unless I missed something it just doesn't seem clearly to be of the same standard as the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian Rose: Fair enough. As you said some of the points raised were interesting, which is why I'd included it, but I knew it was borderline. I've just removed all uses; if you think anything else needs to be beefed up to compensate, let me know. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we're good -- I guess Peterson could be added to ELs but up to you. Happy to support, tks for your hard work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

I've read the book too. I believe that the article as it stands is ready for Featured Article Status. I made one small change, switching a link on Eisenhower's nuclear test moratorium to the sub-article that explains the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: I've rather unexpectedly accumulated 5 supports rather sooner than I could have hoped for. Source and image reviews have also been completed, and I don't think there's any unresolved comments; so would you mind taking a look at this? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 [25].

Shine (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I am taking a break from my normal FACs on articles dealing with television and fictional characters to nominate one that focuses on a song. This article is about a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by American singer Pharrell Williams. Originally intended for the band No Doubt, it was written and produced by Williams, with additional songwriting from Stefani, as the theme song for the 2014 animated film Paddington. "Shine" is a pop song that incorporates elements of reggae pop and ska, and features lyrics that revolve around the lead character Paddington Bear's journey to London and his identity crisis.

The track was released on January 13, 2015, through a lyric video on The Weinstein Company's YouTube channel, in addition to a promotional CD. The song was also promoted in the American trailer for the film. While a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the song remains unavailable to the public. The lyric video is included on the DVD and Blu-ray releases of the film. Critical response to "Shine" was mixed. Some critics praised Stefani and Williams' chemistry as a team, while others compared it negatively to their previous collaborations and singles. It was frequently compared to Willams' 2013 single "Happy", and Stefani and Williams' 2014 song "Spark the Fire".

I believe that the article satisfies all of the parts of the FA criteria. I have received notes in the previous two FAC attempts for this article that there were concerns about its comprehensiveness, but I firmly believe that I have mined all of the sources available on this topic (even reaching into information that was only presented in radio interviews). I really do not believe that there is more information about this song out there that is not already present in the article. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant[edit]

Resolved comments from NumerounovedantTalk

Will look at this soon. NumerounovedantTalk 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article mutiple times in the past two days, I am more than happy to offer my Support as per the standard of prose. I might offer some suggestions/minor c.e. in the future, but I have no comments at this point. I would leave the the technical aspects out of the review owing to my lack of familiarity with the area of concern here. Fine work with the article though. NumerounovedantTalk 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support and comments. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article mutiple times in the past two days, I am more than happy to offer my Support as per the standard of prose. I might offer some suggestions/minor c.e. in the future, but I have no comments at this point. I would leave the the technical aspects out of the review owing to my lack of familiarity with the area of concern here. Fine work with the article though. NumerounovedantTalk 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 1989[edit]

Resolved comments from 1989
  • "a full version of the record remains unreleased digitally" I'd changed the word remains.
  • "They also served as judges on the American reality television singing competition The Voice in 2014." This may not be needed.
  • "Stefani later commented" Is later needed?
  • I believe that this part is necessary to situate that the following part of the sentence is something that she talked about directly in an interview to avoid accusations that I was doing original research or having it appear like I am narrating something rather than pointing to a source and citing it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paddington Bear "; Stefani"
  • "his children's connection with Paddington Bear" How were Pharrell's children connected to the film?
  • Revised. They were fans of the books. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mirror / That's your way home."[19]" Is a period needed?
  • The period is necessary as it is the end of the sentence, but I moved the period outside of the quotation marks. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complete animations of the Paddington Bear character." animations?
  • Paddington Bear in the film was created using a combination of computer-generated imagery and animatronics. Stefani was commented on how she finally saw all of the animation work for the bear put together while watching the film with her sons. Let me know how you think that this should be clarified. I believe it is pretty clear in the article already, but I look forward to any feedback you have to give on this point in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the record remains unreleased for consumer consumption." remains...

Good work on the article, I didn't find too much error. 1989 20:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @1989: Thank you for your comments. I believe that i have addressed everything, and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support and File:ShineGwenPromoCoverLimitedEdition.jpg has an appropriate rationale and license, which passes the image review. -- 1989 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and File:ShineGwenPromoCoverLimitedEdition.jpg has an appropriate rationale and license, which passes the image review. -- 1989 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krish![edit]

  • Support: After reading this twice, I think the article very much deserves that FA star. Aoba47 Well done my friend. Krish | Talk 17:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak
  • Is it possible to add "Format" to the promotional single infobox?
  • I am not sure what you mean by this; the format is already in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by → by American singer Gwen Stefani, featuring collaborative vocals by American recording artist
  • with additional songwriting from Stefani, as the theme song for the 2014 animated film Paddington. → split the last sentence as it's too long. Write something like "It acts as the..."
  • Link "pop" to pop music; I got confused as this genre doesn't appear in the infobox nor in the "Composition" section
  • like "bear" and "station" → including "bear" and "station"
  • She reported that her → The singer reported that her (alternation)
  • I do not think that "the singer" would be appropriate in this context. It sounds odd to refer to a person through their profession. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • her then husband → her then-husband
  • The track was released on January 13, 2015, through a lyric video → reads akwardly, try "A lyric video for the track was released on January 31, 2015..."
  • channel, in addition to a → comma not needed
  • a full version of the record → "record" is generally used for albums; use "recording"
  • was not available → was not made available
  • The lyric video is included → past tense
  • It was frequently compared to → use "likened" here for alternation
  • and Stefani and Williams' 2014 song → William was just a writer on the track and you needn't go in such detail in the lead; remove his name
  • were collaborating on a record → ...recording
  • worked together on the singles: "Hella Good", → no ":" needed here + add release year in brackets for each song
  • Revised. The ":" is needed as it is a list. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefani commented → "She" for alternation
  • be released as a record → ... recording
  • She said the film → She further confessed that the film (alternation)
  • Williams considered the song to be: "a → no ":" needed here
  • as Paddington Bear"; Stefani said that she was: "honored → ...", while Stefani said that she was "honored
  • Unlink Gwen Stefani in the box
  • twenty-four seconds → numbers above ten not spelled out; "24 seconds"
  • "Instrumentation is provided by" → it would be better to say "Instrumentation is composed of"
  • Williams equated Stefani's → state "the singer" as alternation
  • I do not think that "the singer" would be appropriate in this context. It sounds odd to refer to a person through their profession. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone called it: "a pop → no ":"
  • from Gigwise described the lyrics → I would say "noted" would fit better in this context
  • It ends with Williams → say "Shine" here to clarify what we're talking about
  • that she disagreed initially → that she initially disagreed
  • Stefani said that she "wanted → "confessed" for alternation
  • saying that he was: "the one who → no ":"
  • Sample > A 22-second audio sample of the song. The audio sample → A 22-second sample of the song, showing
  • Leave "and music video" out from the title of your "Promotion and music video" section and replace it with "and usage in media"
  • Since the entire second paragraph is devoted to the music video, I feel that the section title is more appropriate in its original phrasing. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • a full version of the record → ...recording
  • not made available for consumer consumption → "for the public" is less complicated and sounds better
  • but it did not receive a nomination → however not receiving a nomination
  • I think the original phrasing is better. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty-five → 35
  • was uploaded to → was uploaded onto
  • from the film in which: "the iconic → no ":"
  • It is included → To clarify things: The visual was included
  • DVD and Blu-ray releases → releases of what??
  • a newspaper which is part of the USA Today Network → this information is superfluous and can be removed
  • The phrase was added to show the source is reliable. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception" needs to go before the "Promotion" section
  • Link "Herbert Chappell" to his own article on Wikipedia
  • "Paddington" should be in italics as it was a television series
  • Dewing praised Stefani and Willams' ability: "to compose → Dewing further praised Stefani and William's ability "to compose
  • of the BreatheHeavy website → just "BreatheHeavy"
  • of the BreatheHeavy website called it: "a catchy → no ":" needed here
  • Release year in brackets for "Baby Don't Lie"
  • of TheWrap wrote that Stefani's vocal delivery → use "the singer" here for alternation
  • Please expand the title of the "Credits" section to "Credits and personnel"
  • add a "the" before "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers"
  • Unlink label and format in "Release history" as previously mentioned in the article

I now support this. You did a very good job, Aoba47! Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panagiotis Zois[edit]

Resolved comments and image / audio clip review by Panagiotis Zois
  • Shouldn't Gwen Stefani be linked in the lead?
  • Linked. Not sure how I missed that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and ska song, featuring lyrics that revolve..."

Honestly, besides these two things, I didn't find any other problems with the article. Kickass job Aoba.

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed both of them. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image / audio clip review[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to do this or if only a few select can, but I looked into both the picture and the audio clip and both of them have fair-use rationales. The picture is low resolution and the audio clip is only 22 seconds long; both of which are acceptable. I only have one question; while I understand that the song wasn't released as a single, not really, does a digital version of the infobox picture exist? PanagiotisZois (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a very good question. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a digital version of the single cover, primarily because it was never made available for digital distribution (again, to the best of my knowledge, the cover is actually from the physical copy that was sent in for Oscar consideration). Thank you for bringing this up as it is a very good question to clarify. And to answer your first question, I am sure that anyone can be do the image review (as they will most likely be double-checked by the closing FAC coordinator). Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I understand. Alrighty, now that the changes have been implemented I can support the nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All the sources seem reliable but "Digital Sheet Music, Gwen Stefani 'Shine'". Musicnotes.com. 2015." seems to miss an accessdate or archive. Still, that's most nitpicking so I'll support it knowing the user will archive it. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I have added an archiveurl and archivedate to the reference. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

I checked out a few sources, which does have the information present in the article, cited. I will support this. Excellent prose, and a really amazing read! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status Update?[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Hello again; just wondering if I could get a status update on this? This has already received a source review and an image review, and has received attention/feedback from several users. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the lead, I think some of the expression could be improved, so I'd prefer to leave it open longer -- I may even recuse and copyedit myself but will see how it goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I just wanted to check in and see what in particular needs more work. I have done some revisions to the lead. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted -- I probably won't get to this in my current walk-thru the FAC list but shouldn't be too long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your time as always. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jackdude101[edit]

Support: the article appears to be completely ship-shape. I see that six other people have also declared support for this nomination, so there is no reason in my mind why this nomination should not be closed right now. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support, and I appreciate your comment. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm seeing a few issues, and I'm afraid this FAC suffers from a common problem among song nominations of cursory review followed by a rapid support. For example, we have a typo in the lead ("She later praised this decision after seeing the completed animated for the Paddington Bear character while watching the film with her children") and parts that I'm struggling to make sense of ("No Doubt recorded their version in late 2014,[6][7] with Patrick Doyle from Rolling Stone reporting that Stefani was working with the band on a song for the Paddington soundtrack.[8] Despite the announcement, Doyle suggested that it may be released as a single by Williams and Stefani instead.": We have a noun verb-ing construction, which is less than ideal. Also, why do we need to know that Doyle reported this? Is it not just a fact? And despite what announcement? And why say that it may be released as a single when it wasn't released at all?); it also takes a long time to establish where this song was played in the film. Given how much fuss is made of the love that Williams and Stefani had for Paddington and what an honour it was, it is a little disconcerting to see that the song barely had a role in the film, and not at all in the UK. It would be good to know why that was. I could go on, but I think we need more review here as we're not quite there yet. It would help this nomination if reviewers would refer to WP:WIAFA so that we can be sure we meet the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: I have corrected the two points raised above. The "animated" typo came in as I have revised the lead several times throughout the review so I accidentally mistyped "animation" while making other corrections. I have also corrected the sentence you have mentioned above. It is important to clarify that Rolling Stone reported this to reflect on the accuracy of the information (especially since No Doubt ultimately did not take part in the song). The "announcement" is referencing the previous sentence in which it was reported that this would be a No Doubt song. The song in actually did not have any impact in the film. It was only featured in the American trailer and the credits for the American version of the film, and did not have a role in the film or its promotion anywhere outside of the United States. This makes sense considering that this is an unreleased song. There really isn't much information on why the studio ultimately did not release this song or use it prominently in the film; I have mined all of the references out there for this song and no-one has come forward to really say anything either way, and I highly doubt anyone involved with this will even acknowledge it again in the future. I hope this helps. Either way, thank you for your comments, and I am more than happy to have this open for further comments (I just did not want to come across as rude). Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992[edit]

  • Shouldn't the lead start off as saying "is a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani"? I understand you want to avoid using "recording" twice in the sentence, but a rewording would help strengthen it.
  • For the uninformed reader, a quick reference that Stefani is the lead singer of No Doubt should be included in the lead where it says "Originally intended for the band No Doubt"
  • I have added a short sentence after this, but I am open to suggestion. I am not sure how I could add it to the dependent clause that you mention above, but I am would more than happy to hear your thoughts. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to its submission" - could be reworded to "as a result of its submission". – jona ✉ 14:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked the lead to best accommodate the new additions I raised here, if any additions were harmful to the article's original intent, then feel free to revert. As of my edit, I support this article's promotion. Best – jona ✉ 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review, and I greatly appreciate your edits as they have helped to improve the article a great deal. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I empathise with Sarastro1's comments. There do appear to be some issues.

  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the recording was not released for public consumption." What about the lyric video and promotional single? Do they not count? I'm puzzled by this line.
  • A full version of the single was never made available for purchase. You can buy this song anywhere legally. The promotional single (as stated in the article itself) was sent out as part of a result of its submission for the Academy Award for Best Original Song so it was never made available to the public, and the lyric video only contains a portion of the song. As stated in the article, the video contains only "a minute and 35 seconds" of the song, and the promotional CD was "limited quantity" and intended only as part of the submission process for an award show. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, understood. I do wonder if this could be made a little clearer, but perhaps that's my problem. What I would like to add, though, is that if the song was never released to the public, I do not think the rationale on the non-free cover image is a good one. While I would not necessarily be opposed to a sound sample, I am inclined to think that a non-free cover image is not justified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this was never released as a single. The standard rationale (and the rationale given on the image page for this particular image) refers to "identification ... to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for". I'm not sure how well that applies in this case. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was omitted from the film's soundtrack," What does this mean? It was previously described as the film's theme song.
  • It was promoted as the film's theme song in promotional interviews, but it was not included on the soundtrack for undisclosed reasons. Not much I can say there as there was never an official reason for the song's omission from the soundtrack. I have removed "theme song" from the lead though as it is misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still struggling with this, sorry. The third sentence of the article is "It is a reggae pop and ska song that is featured in the 2014 animated film Paddington." If it featured in the film, in what sense was it "omitted from the film's soundtrack"? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "omitted from the film's soundtrack" part means that the song was not included in the film's physical soundtrack. It is just an instance in which a song that was featured in the trailer/film ultimately was not released on the physical soundtrack. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this announcement, Doyle suggested" Who?
  • "When discussing the development of the single with MTV News, Stefani said that she initially disagreed with Williams' approach to the lyrics; while he "was very specific about the lyrics" and wanted to include words directly connected to the film and its character like "bear", "Paddington", "station", Stefani said that she "wanted it to be a little more abstract"." This sentence could do with some attention.

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A reviewer from the website antiMusic described the recording as "even more feel good" than the pair's collaboration on "Spark the Fire".[29] After listening to the leaked version of the song, Aaron Butterfield of BreatheHeavy called it "a catchy tune which feels much more like vintage Stefani than anything we've seen so far this era".[13]" Are these good sources? I've never heard of either of them (not that that proves anything, of course). What about Music Times? TheWrap? Direct Lyrics? Fanlala? These don't really strike me as the best sources.
  • antiMusic has a team of editors, as shown here, so I would assume that they would be okay for use here. I have removed the BreatheHeavy website reference. Music Times has a team of editors, as shown here, as does TheWrap, as shown here. I have remove Direct Lyrics and Fanlala. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the recording was not made available for the public." I'm still struggling to understand what is meant by this given the discussion in the rest of the section.
  • Read my above comment on this. A version of the song leaked online, but a full version was never made available on any outlets for purchase. To the best of my knowledge, the only full version of the song that is available is the leaked version (through questionable means of course). Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A minute and 35 second video displaying clips from the film" Could this be rephrased?
  • "The song was excluded from the film's soundtrack" Again, I'm struggling to understand what is being claimed here.
  • Read my above comment on this. The song was heavily promoted as being featured in the movie through interviews with Stefani and Williams, but it was not included on the album for some reason or another (that is unknown and will most likely remain unknown). I want to make it clear to the reader that this song was not included on the soundtrack despite appearing in American/Canadian marketing/promotional materials. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I think I might understand the confusion here; "the film's soundtrack" and "the soundtrack album for the film" are not the same thing. Are you meaning to say that it was not included on the soundtrack album? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to convey that it was not included on the soundtrack album/physical release of the soundtrack. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this could be clearer; presumably (though I welcome being corrected; I'm no expert!) any song that is played on a release of a film is part of the soundtrack. Whether or not a song is included on the released soundtrack album (if a soundtrack album is released) is a different issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the phrase "soundtrack album" so hopefully that helps out. Let me know if it can be further clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During an interview with Stefani and Williams on January 21, 2015, radio host Ryan Seacrest erroneously announced the track was available for purchase on the iTunes Store.[45]" Does that cited source include the claim that it was "erroneous"?
  • I would believe that this would fall under Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE. Seacrest made an announcement on his show that the song was available on iTunes, but it was never made available on that platform. This can be removed if you do not believe it is necessary for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bore; I appreciate that this is only a very minor release, but I feel that this article falls a little short of where it needs to be for FA status at this time, though it makes a perfectly reasonable GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if you have any other questions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed them above. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J Milburn: Thank you again for the comments; I have addressed the comments above. I greatly appreciate you for taking the time to look through this article. I hope that I do not come across as rude in my replies as I am just trying to make sure that I understood everything correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your changes, which have improved the article. I will aim to come back for another look, but I ask the delegates not to hold up the nomination on my behalf, as I may not have a chance to do this. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I've copyedited as I threatened to do earlier, and am pretty happy with the prose now -- I'd have no objections to promotion from that perspective. As far as comprehensiveness goes, I would just be interested in knowing why, if any reliable sources say so, the song didn't appear in the British version of the film (or even simply what the UK version's credit music was if not this song) and also why it wasn't included in the soundtrack album. I know these things happen, but nice to know the rationale(s) if possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your help; I greatly appreciate your copyedits as they have improved the article a great deal. Unfortunately, there were not any reports made from reliable sources about why the song did not appear in the British version of the film. I think that the credit music for all of the releases outside of the U.S. and Canada was "London Is The Place for Me" by D Lime and Tobago Crusoe, but I am not entirely certain to be honest. I have seen people speculating online that "Shine" was recorded and rejected for the film, but was hastily promoted and added to certain releases of the film after it leaked on the internet (which would explain why a majority of the interviews with Stefani and Williams were done over a few days, and they have never performed the song live or addressed it since those batch of interviews), but that is just pure speculation. Thank you again for your input. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. As I say, no objections to promotion from the prose perspective -- one other thing though, "crawling beat" should really be attributed, especially as there are three citations supporting the sentence (perhaps something like 'what so-and-so described as a "crawling beat"'). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. It is definitely a weird release and production history. Maybe, one day in the future, we will finally get further information about this. I will attribute that part now as I completely agree with you. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks, I tweaked the expression -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks really good to me, thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Just a quick question, I am assuming that this is on hold until Sarastro1 comes back on to give this another look and most likely promote this. Just curious as Sarastro1 as not been on for almost a week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, having recused myself, Sarastro will make the call on this one -- he's been busy in RL lately but should return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response, and no worries. I am not in any particular rush; I just wanted to make sure that I have addressed everything and did not miss any other comments and/or suggestions. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 [26].

Steller's sea cow[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article a couple months back. It failed, but Jens Lallensack has been working on it (but I don't think he's co-nominating it) and now I'm sure that it's ready for FAC. It was really close last time, there just wasn't really enough time, so I'm hoping that I can resolve all the problems left. Also, this article's about a species of dugong that went extinct in recent times. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the article has obviously been improved since last time I gave my review and support (feels more comprehensive now), so here it is again. FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

Okay then:

  • In the lead, maybe mention that the range was or may have been wider in pre-history
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, information about its size is split over two paragraphs. Consolidate perhaps?
I just removed it in the second paragraph because it was basically repeating info   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the slow-moving and easily capturable Steller's sea cow maybe easily caught is plainer English?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sea cow's spine is believed to have had 7 neck, 17 thoracic, 3 lumbar, and 34 caudal (tail) vertebrae. I'm curious why this is only believed.
the source said "axial skeleton probably consisted of"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • consuming the tougher stem and holdfast after they washed up on the shore in heaps. I'm curious about this, did they nearly beach themselves to reach it?
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steller researched the wildlife of Bering Island while he was shipwrecked there; it would be good to know how long he was marooned there.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two taxonomic trees labeled Relations within Sirenia that show different things. Maybe the second one which excludes the manatees should be relabeled.
to what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram only shows relationships within Dugongidae, so probably that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • an extinct tropical sea cow that lived near California What does near California mean here? Off California? Oregon? Mexico?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I unlinked duplicated ice ages link, perhaps since there are multiple ice ages and you are referring the most recent one based on the piped link you could a) use the more technical name too or b) put a date range in there? Also ice age probably shouldn't be capped (technically neither should Dugong but it'll be a cold day in hell when I require that to pass)
fixed the dugong thing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are minor issues so support should be simple enough once they're addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, support now. I replied above to the issue of the cladograms, its a simple fix. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I made these changes (rather than listing them here) as they're all pretty straightforward. tentative support as nothing is jumping out at me to fix....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Why repeat the lead image?
it's relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pallas_Sea_Cow.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the source of the data used to create File:Commander_Islands_Map_-_Russian.png?
I asked at the Commons and they said that contours of land masses (like the one pictured) are not protected by copyright so it doesn't need a source line   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking about the source for copyright reasons, but for verifiability - think about this request as a {{citation needed}} tag on the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added citation needed tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Steller_measuring_a_sea_cow.jpg: if this is dated 1925, it can't have been published before 1923 - tag needs reviewing
Added US non-renewal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Extanstellersseacowea.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ледяной_плен_с._097.png: where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Russian Academy of Sciences, 1879   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Waxell_-_Stellersche_Seekuh.jpg needs a US PD tag and the source link is dead
added PD tag but I can't find another link, should I just remove it and leave the ref for it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked archive.org? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I'll try asking the Village Pump at the Commons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They found it, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hydrodamalis_gigas.jpeg needs a US PD tag
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:T2JB367_-_illustration.jpg needs a US PD tag and an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
where do I put the author's date of death?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this was published in 1895, why use a 1923–1963 tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by William Harris[edit]

In the section titled "Ecology and behavior", there are some dead hyperlinks (red) that would benefit from being unlinked. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks D. (I report that nothing exciting has been turned up through DNA analysis of the remains of this extinct mammal, including one conducted this year.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Current ref 1 has a major red flag "Überarb, Germany: Books on Demand". What makes this reliable?
The book seems pretty well-sourced to me, I don't see what the publisher's got to do with it. It cites only journals as far as I can see so I'd call it reliable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "books on demand" is usually a self-publishing service. We consider self-published sources to be problematical, and often unreliable. See Wikipedia:RSSELF. See books on demand site, World Cat entry showing no libraries holding the book, and Other world cat entry showing one library in the whole world holding it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically citing an encyclopedia rather than combing through all the German article sources he lists or American university publications. Basically, instead of trying to create 50 different sources of which most are inaccessible, I just bulk-cited one that's accessible and easy-to-read. I could try finding individual sources in the bibliography if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the guy writing it is an expert in the field (and given the lack of libraries holding the book even if he was, it's pretty clear that this work isn't one that scholars are using) I'm going to have to say it's unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll replace it (but later, this might take a little bit)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found the sources he used, done (and I moved the rothauscher link to the External links section)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear rothauscher isn't used as a ref anymore   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 28 (Britannica.com) is this really needed? There are three other sources on the information it's attached to.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portrayals in media section - why were these specific protrayals chosen out of other mentions? Per MOS:POPCULT, we need to be careful with these sorts of sections. I've always found a good rule of thumb is to only list those pop culture mentions where a third-party source discusses the impact that the portrayals have on our understanding of the article subject.
because that's all there is as far as I can tell (or at least the only ones that don't just take a small glance at them)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what do they tell us about the subject of the article? What commentary in third-party sources discuss how these poems/etc help our understanding of the article subject? Near as I can see, they are just trivial mentions without any coverage in sources to show how the sea cow information is informative. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a short film about them that got nominated for awards is definitely notable, as well as being discussed by W. G. Sebald   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: hello?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: bonjour? Is silence support or waiting for changes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support just for a source review - I will oppose if the sources aren't reliable, but otherwise it's just a check that the sources are reliable. Much the same as an image review. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: The lead image should be of the skeleton, since it is a physical remain of the creature. This is the case for other extinct animal articles. The only better alternative would be the live animal itself (eg quagga). LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, may look better if you just use the one from the description section (and remove it from there), looks repetitive now, and the one in the taxobox is not as good. Drawings from life of actual specimens can be good for the taxobox sometimes, but in this case, it looked a bit weird that it was used two times.FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As Dudley Miles raised a few concerns last time, I'd like to check if there is anything further they would like to add here? Additionally, I just noticed that the nominator's first FA never had the usual spot check for accurate use of sources and avoidance of close paraphrasing. As this article's first FAC only had a partial spot-check, I'd appreciate it if someone could do another. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Josh Milburn[edit]

I glanced at the article when it was first nominated and it now looks much better. I wouldn't call myself a sentimental person, but I have a real soft spot for these animals and I am saddened by their story. As such, I'm thrilled to see such a well-developed article, and I commend you for your work and tenaciousness in bringing this here a second time.

  • "however this may have been more expansive during the Pleistocene epoch" It's not clear what the this refers to.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Holocene epoch it was among the largest mammals, reaching weights of 8–10 metric tons (8.8–11.0 short tons) and lengths of up to 9 metres (30 ft)." The tenses are odd, here. How about something like "Steller's sea cow would reach weights..., making it one of the largest mammals of the Holocene." Is the mention of the Holocene even necessary? I fear it will turn off some readers.
removed the Holocene part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steller's sea cow had a thicker layer of blubber than other members of the order." Orders are yet to be mentioned
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its skin was brownish-black in color, with white patches on some individuals. Its skin" Repetition
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in all sirenians, the scapula of Steller's sea cow was fan-shaped-- larger on the posterior side and narrower towards the neck." Is that double dash in accordance with MOS:DASH?
I just replaced it with "being"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's a synonym   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils of Pleistocene Aleutian Island sea cow populations were larger than those from the Commander Islands," The fossils were larger? I assume you mean that the fossils indicate that the animals were larger.
no, the bones they found were larger (which would mean that they themselves were larger)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zoologist Eberhard von Zimmermann described the sea cow's specific name as gigas in 1780, and placed it in the genus Manati" Is this the first formal species description? If so, how about something like "Zoologist Eberhard von Zimmermann formally described Stellar's sea cow in 1780 as Manati gigas."?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(shown below)" should probably be removed, per WP:SELF.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a member of Vitus Bering's as a painter and surveyor" This needs attention!
I forgot the word "crew"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling with something, and the description section (and various pictures) have left me unclear: if the sea cow was upright, were its tail "fins" vertical (like a shark) or horizontal (like a whale)?
horizontal like a whale, but everyone drew it vertically (I assume) to emphasize the shape of the tail. One of the illustrations has it horizontal in perspective (which is noted)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bone fragments and accounts by native Aleut people suggest that sea cows also historically inhabited the Near Islands,[33] potentially with viable populations that were in contact with humans in the western Aleutian Islands prior to Steller's discovery in 1741." I think this throws doubt on the first sentence of the lead. I wonder if the fact that Aleut people may have had contact with Stellar's sea cow could be added to the lead?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2004 study reported that sea cow bones discovered on Adak and Buldir Islands were found to be around 1,700 and 1,600 years old respectively." Too much hedging; could this be simplified?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of Steller's sea cows in the Aleutian Islands may have caused the Aleut people to migrate westward to hunt them, possibly leading to the sea cow's extinction in that area, assuming the animals survived in that region into the Holocene epoch.[9]" This is interesting; what is the evidence that Aleut people hunted the animal? I'd like to hear more. Frankly, if we have any information, I'd support a whole subsection discussing the Aleut/sea cow relationship.
should that be a subsection of extinction or should there be a section with interactions with Europeans and another section with interactions with indigenous?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I split it into Interactions with Europeans, Interactions with aboriginals, and Other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there's no archaeological evidence but it's speculated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has also been argued that the decline of Steller's sea cow may have been an indirect effect of the harvesting of sea otters by the aboriginal peoples." What aboriginal people? Where? (If you're talking about pre-Steller interactions, this could go in the section I proposed above.)
indigenous peoples of the arctic
  • "Another event potentially leading to extinction of Steller's sea cow, specifically off the coast of St. Lawrence Island, was the onset of the Medieval Warm Period which reduced the availability of kelp. However, the Siberian Yupik people who have inhabited St. Lawrence island for 2,000 years may have simply hunted the sea cows into extinction, as the natives have a dietary culture heavily dependent upon marine mammals.[29]" And this. I feel this section is a little bit all over the place.
  • "the sale of unfossilized bones is generally prohibited" How/why? I don't follow.
unfossilized bone and other marine mammal products are protected by the marine mammal protection act   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Alaska, however, native artisan products made from these bones are legal to sell in the United States. As some the material is not actually from Steller's sea cows, the trade is regulated.[43]" This doesn't read well, and seems oddly specific.
The one exception to the rule is native artisan products, which seems notable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered the sentences, and did a bunch of copy editing in this section to remove redundant sentences. Still might need a bit of work but it is much better now. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a tiny bit patchy for me, but it's clear that some great work has gone into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the current European/aboriginal split doesn't quite work; you could change it to something like "Pre-European contact" and "19th century". Changing the title of the section to "Interactions with humans and extinction" would also make sense, given as some of the discussion isn't really about humans at all. So I'd go for something like: 

-Interactions with humans and extinction
--Pre-European contact
--18th century
--Later reported sightings
--Commercial value
--Portrayals in media [Or: Portrayals in fiction]

The information is good, it's just a matter of working out how to present it. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I thought the European/aboriginal split worked nicely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my place to force any changes, but I'm struggling to understand why you have placed the European material before the aboriginal material (and are all these people Europeans?), and it seems odd to group discussions of global climate with discussions of sea cow/aboriginal contact. (Also, if you have a source, it'd be great if you could open the aboriginal discussion by noting that information about contact with sea cows prior to Stellar's "discovery" is patchy.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aboriginals section is basically all speculation, but the European section is not really speculation at all, so it has more weight in my opinion. The global warming point just seemed relevant when discussing the St. Lawrence extirpation. I fixed the opening of the section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "discovered in 1741". This is Eurocentric. Perhaps "first encountered by Europeans in 1741".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their range may have been more expansive during the Pleistocene epoch". This is over-cautious. According to the text below, Pleistocene fossils have been discovered in several areas.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possible that Steller's sea cow and humans interacted before their discovery on the Commander Islands. This is also over-cautious. It seems clear below that there was interaction, and that the sea cow may already have been on the way to extinction from aboriginal hunting when Europeans arrived.
not really, it's sort of speculation (that's why it later says "...there is no archaeological evidence")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and raising its young" Is this needed? Presumably all mammals raise their young.
mammals can be r-selectors   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tongue was only 30 centimetres (12 in) in length and remained in the back of the mouth, unable to reach the masticatory (chewing) pads." This suggests that the tongue was a vestigial organ, and appears to rely on the Miller translation of Steller's work, as I could not find it in the other works cited. I raised this in the previous FAC. Steller was clearly not reliable with figures as he gave alternative figures of 4 and 24.3 metric tons as the sea cow's weight. In addition, the translators comment that Steller's work contains errors as it was published after his death and consequently not revised. The translation was based on a type written copy of the original Latin, as the original was not then available, although it is now online. As there are many modern sources which can assess Steller's findings in relation to the 27 skeletons discovered and what is known about other syrenians, I do not think this should be regarded as an RS and should not be used as a source.
Are you sure? This is literally the only source anyone can really use to talk about behaviour and description beyond what can be seen from bones. Everyone who talks about Steller's sea cow cites this book. I'll take it down if you insist but I think you should reconsider   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly everyone who talks about Steller's sea cow is bound to cite his book, but modern experts will select the points they accept. Forsten and Youngman cover behaviour, and you could have cited them for much of what you say. What they leave out such as the tongue they may not consider reliable. What points do you consider important and reliable which you cannot cite to a secondary source? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gone extinct due to the onset of the Ice Ages". "Ice Ages" is vague. I think Quaternary or Pleistocene glaciation would be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many lineages died out". Lineages of what? You have only mentioned one species.
changed to "populations"
  • "The Pallas Picture is the only known drawing of Steller's sea cow believed to be from an actual specimen." This is worded as if you have already mentioned the Pallas Picture. I suggest "A drawing of Steller's sea cow by Peter Simon Pallas is belived to be the only illustration based on an actual specimen."
well that's just the opening sentence, the rest of the paragraph delves into its origins. It just starts out with why it's important (I can still change it if you want me to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Commander Islands remained uninhabited until 1825 the Russian-American Company relocated Aleuts from Attu Island and Atka Island there." The grammar has gone wrong.
I forgot the "when," fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the Siberian Yupik people who have inhabited St. Lawrence island for 2,000 years may have simply hunted the sea cows into extinction, as the natives have a dietary culture heavily dependent upon marine mammals." This is unreferenced. I see it is in the paper on the local extinction off St Lawrence Island, and is an alternative explanation to the decline of kelp in the medieval warm period, which you discuss in the next paragraph. I suggest you make clear that they are alternative explanations, and merge the two paragraphs. This would mean merging the 'Interactions with aboriginals' and 'Other' sub-sections.
@J Milburn: I literally just separated the Extinction section into those three sections because J told me to, and i think that it's much better because there are many factors as to why the sea cow went extinct (and basically all of it's speculation outside of sea otters and Europeans as far as I can tell)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunting and the medieval warm period are alternative explanations in a paper on the extinction of the St Lawrence population. Separating them is misleading. Also the first part is unreferenced, and the second suggests the warm period may have led to a wider extinction, which is not in the source, and is very unlikely as the sea cows had survived many earlier even warmer periods. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flooding paragraph is speculation based on your interpretation of an original source. Steller did not suggest that deaths from flooding were significant enough to affect the population. The paragraph should be deleted.
Well it was one way they did die, and he did say that it wasn't that many. I made it more clear that it wasn't a major factor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steller was in Kamchatka immediately after the 1737 tsunami, the largest and earliest ever recorded in the area. His speculation that it was a regular event and that these shaped the mountains are valueless, and illustrate the dangers of amateurs such as ourselves using original sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay fine it's been deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Other' sub-section is a ragbag. The first paragraph belongs with the one before, the second is POV speculation, the third is not 'other' at all but a summary of the situation when Steller arrived. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That section's been deleted 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "collection died down after 1900". "died down" sounds a bit odd to me. How about "declined".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave out the 'Portrayals in media' section as none of the items seem notable, but other editors may disagree.
Well a mention by Kipling and W. G. Sebald seemed notable to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is greatly improved since the previous nomination and looks close to FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now, although I do not think the 'Interaction with humans' heading is helpful, and suggest deleting it and making sub-sections 5.1. to 5.4 into main sections. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Scanning through, I notice that some references are not in ascending numerical order. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, so I haven't changed anything but it is worth checking; most, but not all, articles place references in order but it is not a FA requirement. Finally, although there has been no formal source review, I think Dudley Miles's review is comprehensive enough, and covers the sourcing enough, to make this unnecessary now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2017 [27].

Dungeon Siege[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Siege is a bit of an odd duck of a video game, beginning with the title, as the game contains no besieging of dungeons. It got great reviews and sold 1.7 million copies, enough to still be the 70th-best selling PC game even as the market continues to expand... and yet it's considered only the 3rd-best computer RPG of 2002, behind Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind, both of which had better reviews and higher sales. And today, 15 years later... Dungeon Siege is less remembered than either of them: its plot was almost nonexistent, Chris Taylor's favorite word seems to have been "cliché" when it came to designing anything, and its sequels seem to have gotten progressively worse. In fact, the first thing I found when researching this article was a claim that Dungeon Siege represented the turning point where RPGs shifted from experiences focused on deep stories and characters to shallow thrill rides that emphasized "loot", number treadmills, and massacring hordes of enemies for paper-thin reasons.

And yet, Chris Taylor did one thing incredibly right by pushing so hard to release extensive modding tools and documentation—because some of the mods and total conversions people made with this game are still some of my fondest gaming memories, and therefore despite all its flaws Dungeon Siege will always have a place in my heart. I hope this article represents the game well, and if it inspires you to play it... well, you should probably play Morrowind instead, honestly, but I hope you like it anyways. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe the infobox image needs an ALT text. I believe ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box needs to be completed for the image in the "Gameplay" section. There are a few spots with "n.a." shown that need to be filled in.
  • When you describe how you can change the main character's appearance, I was wondering if you could change the character's gender as well. Would it be worth to noting that? This is more of a clarification question.
  • In the lead, you mention that the Krug are "resurgent after being trapped for 300 years" yet that information does not appear to be directly present in the "Plot" section (at least to my knowledge). Could you possibly clarify this?
  • This is not a major issue, but I am a little curious about the image used in the "Development" section. It is definitely appropriate for the content, but the image's quality seems rather low. I am leaving this point for whoever does the image review, but I was curious if you could possibly get a higher-quality image. If not, then it is fine; just wanted to point this part out.
  • IGN should not be shown in italics in the Reference section. Same for Metacritic.
  • Would it be worth noting that the films were directed by Uwe Boll considering that he directed many films based on video games and has a rather infamous reputation?

Wonderful job with this article; it was an interesting read. There is not much that I noticed that needed improvement. I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Responding in order:
  • Alt text added to all 3 images
  • Updated the FUR
  • Yes you can, added
  • That's a combination of a couple lines from Plot- that the Seck brought down the Empire of Stars and were then imprisoned underneath Castle Ehb, and the first line that the kingdom of Ehb was created 300 years prior at the dissolution of the Empire of Stars.
  • That makes sense to me; I assumed that it was addressed somewhere in the section and that I was just overlooking it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went searching before nominating, but I couldn't find a better free-use image of Taylor (or fair-use I could ask to be re-licensed)
  • Just wanted to make sure; the image appears appropriate for the section, but just wanted to check on the quality. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (handled below)
  • Yes, I think so. Added. --PresN 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; this was a very fascinating read. I will support this nomination. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could add some comments for my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so though. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from TheSandDoctor
  • I have added an ALT text to the infobox image as mentioned by Aoba47.
  • Regarding the comment by Aoba47 about IGN and Metacritic being italicized, isn't that something just to do with the cite template used? I looked at the source and at the references and saw a lot of |work=[[IGN]] but no '' (which would indicate it being italicized).

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a small factor that I noticed while reading through the article. If it is something caused by the cite template used, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands. Thank you for adding the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: About to run to a meeting so I haven't gotten to these yet, but yes, any website that's in italics in the references is because the cite web template italicizes whatever's in "work", which IGN is with Ziff Davis as the "publisher". My understanding is that trying to counter it by italicizing it again inside the parameter is contraindicated as it makes some very weird html as the output. --PresN 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, thank you for clarifying this for me; then I will strike out my comment as it has already been addressed. Good luck with your meeting! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Its been awhile since I listened to them, so I do not know if they provide additional information to your other sources, but Matt Barton has interviewed both Chris Taylor and Neal Hallford in his Matt Chat Youtube series. Might be worth checking out. Indrian (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there were a couple sentences in there that I didn't have, added. Thanks! --PresN 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with this article! Good luck with the FA nomination, I feel that it has a good chance of passing and hope that it does. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber
  • A nice read. Queries below:
The game was highly reviewed by critics upon release - err, "The game was highly rated by critics upon release"
Critics heavily praised - err, sounds odd.Why not just "praised" or "were impressed with/by.."

...and omitting Diablo's long loading times [to make the game experience smoother] - do we need the bracketed bit?

..Dungeon Siege was very commercially successful - is "very" needed here?

Ok, looks good on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I never played it (incidentally: Morrowind was released 15 years ago?!), but I know the genre.

  • "Taylor wanted to do a different type of game than before" Produce?
  • "the Krug, the farmer and their companions are soon swept up in finding a way to defeat the Seck" Could we have a couple of words of description for each of these groups?
  • I copyedited the plot section a bit. I felt there was some equivocation between the player and the player character, but I recognise that this is complicated by the fact that the player controls any one of a party of characters in addition to the main character. Could you please double-check my edits?
  • "Taylor wanted to do a different type of game" Again! develop is another possibility.
  • "release in Q3 of 2001" Jargon
  • "According to the NPD Group, in the month before release it was the eighth-best selling computer game on the basis of its preorders, and upon release in April 2002 it was the second-best selling, after The Sims: Vacation." The wording here is quite ambiguous- could you possibly rephrase?
  • "IGN's Adams, however, said that it could get monotonous," This is slightly ambiguous; what does the "it" refer to?
  • "could easily get unbalanced between different players" Become?
  • "2003 Annual Interactive Achievement Awards in the Computer Role-Playing Game of the Year and Innovation in Computer Gaming categories, though it did not win either" Would it be worth noting what did win? I think that's helpful context, personally.
  • "It received generally lower reviews than the original" Is lower reviews really the right way to phrase this?

Support on prose; very engaging read, and I'm sure the above comments can be dealt with quickly. Please do double-check my (mostly very light) copyediting. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, time keeps on going... though, 15 years and we're only up 2 more Dungeon Siege and 2 more Elder Scrolls games!
  • Reviewed your changes and made a couple tweaks.
  • Fixed the issues noted above. --PresN 02:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good, thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Two minor points:

  • The last sentence in the Development section states an April 5 release date for the game, but the cited source – Ref #1 – says the game was released on March 31, as does Metacritic. I don't know if you'd find it better to change the prose to March 31, or replace Ref #1 with the game's entry at the Steam database, which confirms the April 5 date.
  • The second paragraph of the Reception section contains: The graphics were highly praised; Dan Adams of IGN called it "ridiculously pretty to watch", while reviewers for GameSpot and GamePro praised the "wonderfully detailed and varied environments".[1][3][33] I'm not sure it's right to have that final quotation attributed to two different sources like that. This could work if you just removed the quotation marks altogether and have the sentence read as ... GameSpot and GamePro praised the environments as being detailed and varied.—which both sources do. I'd say this same thing about the final sentence of the same paragraph, but both IGN and GameSpot reviews do happen to individually praise the "ambient" score and sound design, so no such problem there.

And that's it! Fantastically sourced article: all publications seem reliable, everything on the article is attributable to its indicated source [save for point #1 above], every source has been archived, and the article uses a consistent style of formatting. Earwig's tool showed no copyright violation: one source – Ref #33 – at 15.3%, but that was because of two direct quotations; everything else below 6.5%. Well done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, what? I swear that didn't say March 31 when I cited it, I was only using it to cite that one date. The archives say otherwise though. Switched to another cite already in the article. (the date is given on the last page. It appears that April 5 was the official release date, but retailers didn't adhere strongly to it so some people got to buy it as early as March 31 depending on the store they went to, since it wasn't a major release that the publisher really cracked down on things like that for. Maybe; this is all forum posts from 15 years ago talking.)
  • Yeah, I see your point about that being off, changed to your suggestion.
@Homeostasis07: Addressed both points. --PresN 02:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
ALT text seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2017 [28].

Fort Vancouver Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the rarer half dollars in the series, which was authorized almost by chance. It did give another opportunity for the only woman to design more than one classic commemorative coin, Laura Gardin Fraser, the first woman to design a coin (some years earlier) to display her skill. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Usually when I get to your articles a bunch of folks have been by, but this is looking a little lonely. Taking a squiz now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coin was designed by Laura Gardin Fraser, and on its obverse depicts Dr. John McLoughlin, who was in charge of Fort Vancouver (near present-day Vancouver, Washington) from its construction in 1825 until 1846. - sentence is a bit long and has a run-on "and" it'd be good to eliminate if possible.
The coins sell for at least in the hundreds of dollars today, depending on condition - aayyy, the "for at least in" sounds a bit weird to mine ears. I know what you're trying to say though and should be an easy tweak...
link "Great Plains"
He and Senator Wesley Jones, also of Washington state, in May 1924 introduced legislation in their houses of Congress for a half dollar commemorating the centennial of Fort Vancouver. - the "in May 1924" sounds odd where it is - I think it'd flow better after either "legislation" or "Congress"
Johnson realized that such a simple amendment might not result in a coin being issued, and returned to the House floor soon thereafter, asking that the bill be reconsidered, so he could couch his amendment in the same phrasing as for the other two coins. - long sentence. recommend splitting
link quorum
Only 50,000 of the authorized mintage of 300,000 was coined "were coined"?

Looks fine otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've got those things, though you may want to take a second look at the one ending the lede as I wasn't thrilled by what I came up with. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, what I would do is, "The coins can sell for hundreds of dollars, depending on condition"

In any case, looks alright so support on prose and comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That might imply to some that they can sell for less, though. I'll keep working on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "what became the Oregon Territory": That's my language. You know more about it than I do, but I'm not sure if we can call it that before 1846. Oregon Country may be an option you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm trying to ground the reader in something more familiar. I don't say when it became the Oregon Territory, so it's what happened to it later. Oregon Country is unnecessarily vague. --Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed our coverage, I think "Oregon Country" will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
Thank you for the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt. Just working my way through this article, which seems very interesting! One comment so far:

  • The lead mentions that Fort Vancouver is near Vancouver, Washington, but I didn't spot any explicit mention of that in the article (although Vancouver, Washington is discussed a couple of times without anything about it being close to the fort). Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moishe. Thanks. I've made that clearer and sourced it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three more comments:

  • Lead: "Due to the low number of surviving pieces, the coins are valuable today." Is this definitely stated clearly enough in the body of the article? It says they were scarce in 1925, then lists a bunch of values until the present, then that today they are worth between $300 and $975. I presume from the context that this is possibly a high price range compared with other fifty-cent pieces, but someone else might presume that such prices aren't unusual for old coins.
Something worth several hundred dollars is, I think, of itself valuable. I'm open to suggestions. I did not mean by comparison with other commemorative coins and such is not stated.
  • Background: "Fort Vancouver, on the north bank of the Columbia River in what is today Washington state, lay across the river from what would become Portland, Oregon, and is today in Vancouver, Washington." Thank you for adding the clarification from my comment above. But the new version mentions twice in the same sentence that it is in what is today Washington state. I wonder if there's a good way to combine the two, for example by saying "Fort Vancouver, on the north bank of the Columbia River in what is today Vancouver, Washington, lay across the river from what would become Portland, Oregon."
  • Legislation: As you know, I did a copy-edit at the end of this section and changed "Coolidge" to "President Calvin Coolidge". But then I noticed in the previous sentence it talks about "Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon urged the president to veto it". I wasn't sure whether that was referring to the president of the USA or possibly the president of something else. If it's the former, I guess "President Calvin Coolidge" should actually be moved to the previous sentence.

Those are all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, sorry to be so slow in responding. I've done those. Thank you for the thorough going over.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great, thanks for your changes. Moisejp (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes Flynn Authoritative Reference a high quality reliable source? According to World Cat, its only held by one library...
He is a well-published author on numismatics, see here.
Leaving this out for other reviewers to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

There are four images, all of which are properly licensed. It seems the John McLoughlin image still requires alt text. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's done, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per my review "disclaimer" here. There are two minor points I leave to your discretion on whether you think you should change it or not:
  • I'm not sold on the phrase "Johnson tacked on language", but it may be an Engvar thing
  • Ditto for "McLoughlin was what government there was", which I think could be more elegantly phrased.

That's is, another fine coin article you've given us. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm inclined to keep both as is, and it is an EngVar (and possibly legislative) thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2017 [29].

Naruto[edit]

Nominator(s): 1989 & Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader. After the second nomination, Mike Christie has been a big help to his contribution to the article, making the article shorter and easier to read. From our part, we would like to have this article given a second chance on FAC this year, and hopefully it could pass. 1989 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I have a question about the "Original video animations" and the "Films" subsections. Would it be better to have this information represented in prose rather than a bulleted list? Also some aspects of the list feel a little incomplete to me (i.e. Focuses on the children of the main characters) and could use further context and information for the reader.
    On the article talk page, Mike felt that a list would look better and more organized. As for the incompleteness and context, I fixed it. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It used to be in prose; see this version, for example. It was essentially a list then, too, but was harder to read. Some of the details are at List of Naruto media, and since there's little more to say about the films and OVAs than their name, release date, and a sentence of summary, I don't think leaving it as prose is really beneficial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than "Commercial success" as a name of a section, wouldn't it be better to have "Commercial performance" just to avoid any misinterpretations of POV issues? While it is clear that this is successful, it may be better to let the sources speak for itself rather than putting it up in the section title.
    I changed it. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this article. I only have two rather minor comments to make about this. I will promote this article once my comments are addressed. Good luck with this article this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Replies above. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I support this for promotion. Good luck with this and great work with the article as a whole. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Hopefully, this time the nomination will be successful for you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

After translating the Japanese reference I added, I think the article passes its source review. All urls are archived whereas the books indicate page numbers. References in the both the series' success as well as critical response appear to be WP:Reliable sources approved by the project of manga and anime. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review - the fair use rationale for the single, low-res image is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vedant
  • The "addictiveness" bit in the lead is a little vague IMO. What exctly was addictive?
    I changed it. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kishimoto subsequently decided to make Naruto a child in ninja training who could transform into a fox, and he created a one-shot of Naruto for the summer 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump, in which Naruto is a fox" - The phrasing could be better. "Naruto" is overused in the sentence; the whole fox bit also feels repetitive.
    I changed it. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the positive feedback it received in a readers' poll, Kishimoto was unhappy with the art and the story." - "it" might not be appropriate it here as the subject should be introduced sepaartely in a new paragraph.
    Fixed. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first eight chapters of the follow-up series were planned before it appeared in the magazine" - again, the magazine isn't really as obvious as one might think. Unfamiliar readers might not follow the lead. I think it might be easier if you merge the paragraphs as they talk about the same thing.
    Fixed. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but in the event there was little room for romantic plotlines as he considered Naruto to be primarily a fighting series" - this could be phrased better as well.
    Fixed. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some very basic fixes in prose while reading through the article, and will go through the rest of the sections soon. Also, are there no relevant images available for any of the sections? NumerounovedantTalk 13:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989 will be the expert on this, not me, but I doubt there are any free images, and we can't really justify more than one as fair use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there are no free images of the author Masashi Kishimoto. In some volumes he showed some sketches about the characters but I doubt they are that important here.Tintor2 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this sketch of Naruto from the pilot series could help?Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. -- 1989 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a little bit on the rather unknown journalists/critics' actual professions just to put things in perspective? (Eg. Amy Plumb and Christopher A. Born, among others.)

The prose generally reads alright to me (although it could use some polishing), I might make some changes (if need be) directly. Other than that, I can Support this. Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 18:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jackdude101[edit]

Support: the article is good to go, as far as I can see. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'll be reviewing this in parts, just starting with the lede here. Looks generally good, just one comment:

  • "Reviewers praised the manga's character development, strong storylines, and well-executed fight scenes, though some felt the fight scenes slowed the story down. The anime also received positive comments, though a couple of reviewers felt the animation was weak." Consecutive sentences with similar (and noticeable) structures. Also, "couple" seems informal.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I cut the second sentence -- the anime is secondary to the manga, and I don't think it has to be discussed in the lead; and it wasn't going to be easy to rephrase this without getting more specific or mentioning reviewer names, which is more than the lead requires. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third Hokage is liked on a second or later usage but not on the first.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Shortly afterwards, Naruto becomes a ninja and teams with Sasuke Uchiha, whom he often competes against, and Sakura Haruno, whom he has a crush on, to form a three-person team, Team 7" "team" is used three times in this sentence. The two not in a proper noun can probably be changed.
    Agreed; done. I think if we say X joins Y and Z to form a team we don't need to say there were three people in the team. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More paragraph breaks in the plot summary strike me as a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tsunade herself, who is a figure of authority in Naruto, is portrayed as ridiculous in a way that men in the same position are not. Fujimoto suggests this conservative and old-fashioned presentation of women" The "conservative and old-fashioned ..." seems to stray into authorial voice rather than a source's opinion.
    I cut the adjectives; I think it could be altered to make it clear this is Fujimoto's opinion but there's no need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might give the reader a bit more background on Rock Lee, either in the plot summary or where they are introduced.
    Done. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A monthly sequel series titled Boruto: Naruto Next Generations began in the Japanese and English editions of Weekly Shōnen Jump in Spring 2016," the "Spring" seems inconsistent with "monthly" I think it would be OK if you would lower case "Spring" and change "in" to "during".
    I made it "in early 2016". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It debuted on Japanese TV on February 15, 2007, on TV Tokyo, and concluded on March 23, 2017" Ok, swell, but then you're talking about stuff that happened in 2009, it's a bit confusing.
    Not sure what to do about this. If we split the end broadcast date from the debut date in order to keep things in chronological order, I think that would be confusing in a different way. How about making it "and eventually concluded" to prompt the reader that we're talking about a long time period, which might make the jump back to 2009 less confusing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released on December 16, 2009: featuring episodes 119–120, the story revolves around Kakashi Hatake's childhood." Likely that should be a semicolon.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only the first 53 episodes were produced in this format" I might say "made available" for "produced"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the original video productions, the capitalization seems inconsistent (compare #4 with the others). Also, why is "High School" capped?
    On the first point I'll have to defer to 1989 as I just realized that the source given only seems to cover the Playstation release, not the OVA itself, though perhaps the information is hidden in the Japanese. I fixed the other point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Team 7 are on the beach," "on the beach" is also an expression which I would avoid by saying "at the beach".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sasuke sleeps and dreams of his brother Itachi making him breakfast, repeatedly until it is perfect." It strikes me that the English here could be improved (esp the second part).
    Made it "In his sleep, Sasuke dreams of his brother Itachi making him breakfast repeatedly until it is perfect". I think the comma was the real problem with the second part; is removing it enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naruto Uzumaki is officially known to be the Seventh Hokage, but doesn't make it to the ceremony." Officially known?
    Changed to just "is officially the". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A short original video animation titled Konoha Annual Sports Festival" this has the air of introducing something completely knew when you've just spoken of it a few paragraphs before.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naruto is sent 20 years into the past as he explores a mystical tower for a rogue ninja with the Fourth Hokage." language could be improved especially the "for a rogue ninja" is it on behalf of the ninja?
    Fixed. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naruto is framed for attempted murder of the Raikage; as he tries to break out of prison, he discovers its secrets." If it's the prison's secrets, I would put a "the" before prison. If it's something else, obviously you've fooled me.
    Done. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but before he awakens his Mangekyō Sharingan" haven't a clue what this is and this is the only reference.
    Added description. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "light novels" I haven't encountered this expression before. It means?
    It's a Japanese publishing format; we have an article on it. It's linked in the lead. Do you think more explanation is needed, or perhaps another link in the body? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various Drama CD series were released with voice actors performing original episodes." Drama CD? Odd caps, and odd phrase.
    The source calls them that, but I agree it looks odd. I think the intention is just to indicate that they are dramatic renditions; they're audio only so they can't say anime. The second half of the sentence makes it clear what's going on so I just cut "Drama". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soundtracks from the Shippuden films have also been released, with the first one available in 2007.[145][146]" This is, effectively, a rehash of what you've just said.
    Actually this refers to the movie soundtracks as opposed to the anime soundtracks. Is this unclear? We could change the start of the paragraph to "Soundtracks for the anime Naruto: Shippuden..." if that would help highlight the difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a series of guidebooks called Naruto anime profiles was released." Shouldn't this be in title caps?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a review of volume 28 Brienza also praised Part II's storyline and characterization, though she commented that not every volume reached that level of quality." I would change "that" to "a high".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of the conference, at least the year, would be helpful.
    The proceedings come from two conferences, in 2009 and 2010, but after looking at it again I just cut the sentence; knowing that the conference existed tells the reader nothing about Naruto. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Derrick Tucker was also negative, though he felt that their best, the depictions "[left] little to be desired"." I'm not sure what "their best" really means here. Maybe "at their best"?
    That was just a typo; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As with the manga, some reviewers, such as Martin Theron of ANN, along with Tucker, felt there were too many fight scenes,[201][200]" wrong order
    Fixed, though I believe this is not a requirement; I recall a recent discussion, maybe at VPM, about this. Some editors like to place the most important reference first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naruto: Shippuden was well-reviewed by Activeanime's David C. Jones who commented animation had improved" Animation in general or in the Naruto series?
    Just the series; changed to "commented that the animation had improved". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've got.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review. I've responded to most points above; 1989 is the subject matter expert so I've left some for them. 1989, can you take a look through the outstanding points above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do things look to you now, Wehwalt? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry,Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: The first ping may not have worked due to an error, as you need to remove the error ping with the message and repost. -- 1989 00:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Timothyjosephwood[edit]

  • I'm not an FA expert, but I looked through and made a few exceedingly minor corrections, and there's nothing jumping out at me as obvious issues that I can see. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2017 [30].

Istiodactylus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article about a pterosaur (or "pterodactyl") to ever be nominated for FAC. The group is often overshadowed by dinosaurs (or incorrectly assumed to be dinosaurs), so this article can hopefully serve as an example of how such an article can be written (modelled on the structure of dinosaur articles). I picked this particular genus due to the, for pterosaur standards, not too confusing literature, and the many nice, free available images. It is also an interesting animal in its own right, as it may have been an inland scavenger, whereas pterosaurs have traditionally been considered fish-eaters. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from N Oneemuss[edit]

I've never reviewed an article before, so if you disagree with my comments then you're probably right :). Also, I am a layman when it comes to palaentology, but I do agree that it would be nice to promote a pterosaur to featured article.

Lead[edit]
  • I don't think England needs to be linked in the lead (and if it should, then China probably should be too)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naso-antorbital" in the lead should probably be defined (I can't find an article to link it to, unfortunately)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "razor-edged" in quotation marks? If it is a quote, where is it from?
Because it is kind of a subjective description, it has also been described in other ways (listed in the description section), but I just picked the most descriptive one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and should be linked to its taxonomic meaning if genus is. Is "group" a scientific term too?
Linked family, group is just informal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to a "cookie cutter" seems quite informal to me
Yep, but it has been described like this by several writers, so it is an established way of describing it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this article in British or American English? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "cookie cutter" seems American ("biscuit cutter" would be British), but your spelling of "palaeontology" is British
British. Most of the sources are by British scientists too, and they say "cookie cutter". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • Some references are out of order (not just in this section), e.g. "The hindlimbs were short compared to the forelimbs, and the feet were as long as the small third finger.[2][1][4]"
Yeah, not sure if they're required to be in order, though, I've not been told to do so before. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything that says they have to be in order either, so I think it can stay as is N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a quite large pterosaur" sounds a bit odd to me; how about "quite a large pterosaur"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and last sentences of the first paragraph (and the first of the second paragraph) are very similar to sentences in the lead. I don't know enough about the Featured Article Criteria to know if this is a problem, but I would certainly change the very first sentence (which is copied almost word-for-word)
Shouldn't be an issue with the FAC criteria, it is just the most concise way to say it, and can't really be further condensed in the intro (though "quite" is gone). FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "rediscovered" in quote marks? Also, the term suggests that there is more of a story behind this, which could be worth adding (perhaps as a note)
This was added by the copy-editor. I have changed it to the original version, the story is elaborated further in the history section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It redirects to the specific section about these structures, though, which makes it easier for the readers to find it. Also, it can't really be defined much further than "hairlike fibres", which is pretty much what the article already says. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving inches to two decimal places seems excessive (how about "0.2–0.3 in"?)
That's how the conversion template does it, not sure what parameters to add, but I wouldn't mind changing it if I did. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This works: 6–7 millimetres (0.2–0.3 in) N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added! FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention what language "odontoid" means "pseudo-tooth" in
The sources don't say what it directly translates as, and I don't even think it means pseudotooth, that's just an alternate term. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why "percent" is spelled out in the first paragraph and given as a symbol in the last?
Spelled out both times now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All in all, this section seems very technical, but I suppose that is unavoidable with this sort of article
Yeah, with no external features known, most prehistoric animals can only be described from their skeletal features, and such descriptions are pretty technical by default. But it is much simplified from the sources anyhow, and many details most readers wouldn't understand are left out. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History of discovery[edit]
  • Again, there are some out-of-order references in this section (e.g. after the second sentence)
  • I think palaeontologist and geologist need links
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequently suggested" – do we know when?
Same year, added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how useful the mention of the Natural History Museum's previous name is, especially given as an abbreviation
That's how these specimens were referred to in the literature until it was changed relatively recently, so it is important to note, in case readers want to check out the given sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for Atherfield suggests that it is called Little Atherfield – do you know if this was different at the time?
Changed to Atherfield Ledge, which I think is the relevant one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sacra" could use a link or definition (or both)
Linked. It is already explained earlier (when synsacrum is mentioned). FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That link goes to a disambiguation page; the link should be sacrum instead N Oneemuss (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of words explaining who Lyddeker was could be nice (same with Jenny A. Clack a bit later)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the first two paragraphs of this section so far. EDIT: Am now back to reviewing.
  • Seeing as the previous mentions were all specific to the Early Cretaceous, Cretaceous could be linked here
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ischium should be linked too, I think
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify what "three-dimensionally preserved" means? How can something not be preserved in 3D?
Yes, most pterosaur fossils are squashed flat, compression fossils. Added a note. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it might be useful to briefly note who Williston is
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Bennett? (I assume that he isn't any of the people on the disambiguation page Chris Bennett)
Comment He doesn't have a Wikipedia page. [31] Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to say "the palaeontologist Chris Bennett" (or something along those lines) N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a mistake with the italics in "O." latidens (ignore if this is deliberate)
The quotation marks are to show that the genus and species do not belong together. Not sure if that's what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information about the additional finds on the Isle of Wight could be useful (e.g. a date)
Added a bit, but not much to find. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the species name refers to the country" I think this needs clarifying, because the link between sinensis and China isn't immediately obvious
Changed the note, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to read this sentence three times to properly understand it: "They found the holotype specimen, a partial skeleton, very similar to I. latidens, though it was much smaller, with a wingspan of 2.7 metres (8.9 ft), and more teeth." The use of commas makes it hard to see that they found two things: the holotype specimen (which was the partial skeleton), and teeth. I think splitting this into two sentence could be useful (e.g. "They found the holotype specimen, as well as more teeth. The specimen was a partial skeleton, very similar...")
I shook the text around and shortened the sentence, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Jun-Chang (again, I think just calling him a "Chinese palaeontologist" or something similar could be useful)?
Comment He has a Polish page. The last name is Lü. IMO his name should still be included, because there are many, many Chinese pterosaur researchers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So many different Chinese studies are mentioned that it is good to be able to distinguish them somehow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the use of "figured" in the last paragraph; it seems to be quite an unusual meaning of the word, so maybe something like "represented in a diagram" would be better. Also, that sentence could be recast into active voice
It is very common (if not the standard) in scientific literature ("fig. 1", etc.), but reworded anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Classification[edit]
  • I don't think "schools" needs to be in quotes; it's a common use of the term
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clade should probably be linked, as should taxa (and also maybe age, though that article is a bit useless)
Done, short articles may expand in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about cladograms, but why is Pterodactylus there? It is only distantly related to the article subject, and appears only once in the article
Comment Pterodactylus is an outgroup taxon that provides phylogenetic context; it represents the sister group of the other species present in the cladogram. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief note with a link to outgroup. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeobiology[edit]
  • "herons, storks and skimmers" – this may be too obvious, but it might be worth mentioning that they are all birds
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "mosaic" a technical term here? It sounds strange and out of place to me
Comment Cf. mosaic evolution. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rostrum" could use a link
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in a row start with "scavenging birds" (how about starting the second one with "they"?)
I said "these birds", to still make it clear what we are talking about. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to "aspect ratio" seems unhelpful; it's about geometry, so a definition or a different link is needed
Changed to Aspect ratio (aeronautics). FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soaring birds is a redirect to a list with only two sentences of explanation; maybe a definition could be more helpful
Hmmm, it is just birds that soar, added that such rarely flap their wings. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Nurhachius confused me, seeing as it was mentioned only much earlier in the article. Also, I'm not certain of its relevance here (is this to do with the fact that this is another name for I. sinensis, or what?)
Witton mentions it to make inferences about istiodactylids in general. Added "istiodactylid" in front of the name, if it helps. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wings of istiodactylids...the wings of istiodactylids...the wing shape of istiodactylids" – repetitive paragraph
Changed the middle occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. I think hands and feet are meant, but it isn't clarified in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there had been suggestions about the feet being used for "climbing or suspension", then I think this could be mentioned elsewehere in the article (instead of just with reference to Witton's work)
The feet aren't known for this genus, so I'm not actually sure what Witton is referring to (perhaps inferred from some other istiodactylids). None of the other sources about this genus mention it. I know it has been proposed for pterosaurs in general, but it is hard to say what Witton meant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Palaeoecology[edit]
  • I was meaning to look at this section later, but I just noted that "degrees" is mentioned on its own; I think it needs a unit (presumably Celsius) and a conversion
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong, but is it necessary to mention that the first specimen might have been collected from the Wessex Formation? Seeing as there are two options, then the statement is obviously true (and the evidence seems weak). Also, is this from the source, or your guess?
Guesses by editors are not allowed, that would be WP:OR. But the exact circumstances and location where the holotype specimen was collected is unknown. Since other specimens are known from both Wessex and Vectis, either option is possible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to radius in the caption is about maths
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Hooley's specimens switches tenses, which seems a bit ugly; are the specimens still encrusted in pyrite?
The sources are not entirely clear, but it seems they are still coated in pyrite. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, didn't know there was an article with that exact title, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crocodilians" could be linked to Crocodilia (to be honest, it should probably be a redirect anyway)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore this if I'm wrong (which is likely), but I'm not sure about how useful this section's second paragraph is. It is as if an article about walruses listed twenty animals and plants that live in the same environment as they do. Also, why is the entire second paragraph about the Wessex Formation (surely there is information from other sites, like the Vectis Formation, where members of the genus have been found)? If this is standard for palaeontology articles, then ignore me.
Comment Listing fauna is standard for palaeontology articles. The Vectis Formation, however, is quite understudied; I tried to locate some adequate sources on the Vectis to help with this article's GAN, with no luck. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such sections are good to put the animals into context. With articles about living animals, we know which other species they interact with and can write about such interactions. But here, we need to reconstruct everything descriptively. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article seems very good to me so far. As a first-time reviewer, I don't really feel qualified to support or oppose, but I think that all of my comments are fairly minor. Again, feel free to use your judgement and ignore comments that you don't agree with. More to follow (within the next few hours).N Oneemuss (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, layman reviews are always more than welcome! Most readers will be laymen anyway. I'll start fixing issues later. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the whole thing now, and I must say that you have done an excellent job on this article. None of my issues are particularly important, to be honest.N Oneemuss (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, everything should be addressed now (I think). Thanks for the thorough review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I have read through the article again, and I have only found a few more issues:
  • sacra in "history of discovery" links to a disambiguation page (I mentioned this above)
Linked to sacrum. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, why is (Seeley, 1901) in brackets in one place, but "Andres & Qiang, 2006" isn't in brackets?
Because though Seeley named the species, the current genus/species combination is not the same as the one he coined. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "agesof" appears as one word in the second paragraph of the "classification" section
Added space. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Near the end of the "classification" section, subfamily could use a link
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are addressed, I think I will support this article. N Oneemuss (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think all are addressed now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, well done for the good work on this article. It has my support. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think you should have no problem reviewing other articles after this! FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this at GAN and the prose has improved since then. Nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, luckily it didn't take long for a "layman" review this time around. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • wingspan ranging from 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft) long. – Not sure if you need the "long" here, as the word "span" already implies a length measure. But I'm not sure.
Not sure either, but makes sense. But to be sure, pinging Casliber and Sabine's Sunbird, as they might know the norm in bird literature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might say "wingspan of 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft)" or the above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, ok, I think I will retain the current wording, just to make it as clear as possible. But I have no problem with changing it on further objections. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to know that both wordings are possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but you perhaps should consider replacing "nostril" with "external naris". "Nostril" is misleading, as it refers to the soft-part anatomy of the nose, which is not preserved.
Stafford/Howse/Milner 2001 actually say "skull elongate but with short shout regon anterior to the nostrils" in their diagnosis. So I'm thinking the terms can actually be used synonymously? I have also seen the term "bony nostril" used in various places, including the 2001 Witmer nostril paper.[32] FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the classification section: Maybe it would be easier for the reader if Istiodactylidae gets properly introduced (I know, there is already a sentence in the History of Discovery section). Do I understood it correctly that in both Unwin and Kellner classifications Istiodactylidae contains exclusively Istiodactylus itself?
At that time (2003), only Istiodactylus itself was known (as the sole member of the family, stated in history). Should I give dates for when the others were recognised? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about adding a sentence like In 2001, Howse, Milner, and Martill placed the genus in its own family, Istiodactylidae. Just to make this section complete, and to improve on the information flow. Of course, this would be a redundancy. Just an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief note that the group was monotypic by 2003, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the first three species listed are outgroup or reference taxa) – I count five listed outgroup taxa.
I think the two others (Hongshanopterus, Haopterus) are there because they have previously been thought to be istiodactylids. Witton says "Pterodactylus, Coloborhynchus and Pteranodon were used as outgroup taxa". He also says "... suggests Istiodactylidae is constrained to five species (Liaoxipterus brachyognathus, Lonchengpterus zhoai, Nurhachius ignaciobritoi, Istiodactylus latidens and Istiodactylus sinensis) defined by their distinctive dentition, but excludes the putative istiodactylids Haopterus gracilis and Hongshanopterus lacustris." So he wanted to test their placement relative to istiodactylids. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the classification section, especially the second sentence, is hard to read and understand, and could be a lot clearer.
Switched some things around, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the istiodactylids from China (the first known perhaps being Haopterus) – this might confuse some readers, as Haopterus is shown outside Istiodactylidae in the cladogram. What about adding a sentence listing the genera with are sometimes, but not always, included in the group?
Took it out of the parenthesis, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have fixed some things and added some responses above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two fossils from North America initially thought to have been istiodactylids are now believed to have been misidentified (Gwawinapterus is most likely a fish, for example). – When there are only two fossils, I would just mention both of them instead of chosing one as an example. What is the second anyway? I had a quick look at Witton (2013) but could not find it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Witton mentions it on page 145, it is a reference to this Bakker paper:[33] But I can see Bakker only compared it to Istiodactylus, so I have rewritten it accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • trying to hide or to attack them with precision. – Are you refering to Mobbing (animal behavior) here? This could do well with a bit of additional info. And what about removing "with precision" here? Why is it important that the attac comes "with precision"? Just attac would be enough?
It is meant in a predatory sense. Witton says "Their orbits are also relatively small as, unlike predatory birds, they do not have to search for animals attempting to remain undetected nor carefully judge attacks on prey items", which I tried to simplify... But I have now reworded it, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on his long-jawed reconstruction, Hooley found the beak of Istiodactylus similar to … – I would add the year of Hooley's study here. I know, it is mentioned in other sections. But the reader does not know that this is referring to one and the same study (and will have forgotten the date already anyway). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To sum up, a really great article, and I wasn't able to find any issues appart from these very minor quibbles. Great to see a pterosaur at FAC, finally. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, made some fixes. And by the way, no problem with delays, I was busy with planning a friend's Polterabend the last many days anyway... By the way, while searching for the Bakker paper mentioned above, I found this blog-post by Mark Witton[34] which explains some details not mentioned in his paper or book... So I might want to add it after I read it more thoroughly... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes – I want to support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks again for the professional opinion! FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2017 [35].

Jacob Gens[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) and User:Renata3[reply]

This article is about... semi-controversial figure from the Holocaust. Gens was the head of the Jewish ghetto in Vilnius who was put in place by the Germans. He is controversial because he believed that by cooperating with the Germans, some Jews could be saved. In the end, he was shot and the ghetto was liquidated. The article is as complete as I could make it, and I've tried to present all views about his activities. Renata's a co-nom because they were incredibly helpful with finding some information and helping to improve the content and other maters. Its had a copy-edit by John, and I hope it's ready for FA status. It's been a while since I've nominated anything, but I should have more nominations coming soon. This article is certainly a change from my usual subjects, but it's also an important subject that needs careful work to ensure balanced coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I looked for the horses and bishops but didn't see them. A few comments.

  • I might suggest moving his controversial role in the ghetto to the lede paragraph. It's what he's known for.
  • You are not consistent in your italicization of Judenrat. Or Aktion.
  • Judenrat is consistently not italicized (it generally isn't in the sources). I've made Aktion always italicized. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly a little more could be said to the effect he was born in the Russian Empire and after WWI, Lithuania was independent.
  • "After the formation of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Gens was fired from his job." I might toss a "in 1940" after "Republic".
  • Done (and of course, had to add a source for that since the previous source for that phrase didn't have a date...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Gens was not on the official payroll, which spared him from deportation from the city." Was the rest of the health department deported then? This is a bit opaque.
  • Probably because the sources are opaque. It's not clear in the sources what happened - they just mention that he wasn't deported because he wasn't on the payroll. I will try to double-check Arad's Ghetto in Flames, but it may or may not have further details. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have clarified at bit - it was Gens who was in trouble, not the health department. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After their arrival, Gens remained in charge of the Jewish hospital." the last we heard of him, he had an unregistered job with the health department. Was this it?
  • It isn't clear if there is a job missing in the record or if the job with the health department was in the hospital. Again, I suspect our sources are reconstructing events after the fact from second-hand sources, so there is probably some confusion. The liklyhood of any records from either the hospital or health department surviving are vanishingly slim, given the confusion of the times and the destruction that came later. That is unfortunate, of course, but does tend to make things a bit... confused. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further research shows that Beinfield is out of synch with the other sources, which state that Gens was appointed to head of the hospital after the Germans arrived, so have changed accordingly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you need a hyphen in "Revisitionist-Zionist"
  • Arad (the source here) used one, but have removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The smaller ghetto was liquidated " I might more explicitly say what happened to the residents.
  • " the ghetto's rabbis, who argued " I might use "ruled". They would have been regarded as the final authority on Jewish law, ordinarily.
  • Dawidowicz says that "the rabbis sent a delegation to tell him [Gens] that he was contravening Jewish law. To support their position, they cited Maimonides. Gens, who knew little, if anything, of Jewish law, responded that it was justifiable to surrender a part if the others would thereby be saved." I can't quite see this as supporting "ruled". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect if we argue about this, we'll wind up chasing our own tails. I have no doubt they intended a ruling as to halachah (after all, they wanted him to stop), but will let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gens was afraid that the actions of the Germans would result in a widespread massacre." Maybe "Gens was afraid the Germans would kill all of the Jews in the ghetto, and sought to save some at the price of others" if the source will justify.
  • Source says "German and Lithuanian united invaded then unexpectedly the ghetto and Gens feared that the snatching of people in the streets would end in a general massacre." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He persuaded the Gestapo man in charge of the roundup to let the Jewish police gather together the deportees during the late-1941 deportations" Possibly "He persuaded the Gestapo officer in charge of the late-1941 roundup to let the Jewish police secure the deportees" or similar. I'm trying to avoid the near-repetition.
  • Changed to ".... roundup to let the Jewish police gather together the deportees during the late-1941 Aktions." which does get rid of one deportation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an Aktion on 3–5 November, where the entire ghetto was checked against their paperwork," Possibly "During the Aktion on 3–5 November, in which the paperwork of everyone in the ghetto was checked".
  • "This incident took place under the supervision of German officials," I might say "gaze" rather than "supervision".
  • Arad says "scrutiny" so I'm trying to stick to the sense of his phrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Germans backed Gens' efforts to secure more power, and implied that he was not responsible to the Judenrat, nor that the Judenrat had any power over Gens or the Jewish policemen." I might change "nor" to "and" and"any" to "no"
  • The Weisskopf anecdote seems a rather minor incident, an intramural squabble that in the grand scheme of things did not matter, since it does not appear anyone was deported or killed. The fact that Gens was in charge of selecting who is to live and who to die, raises the question of did he abuse the power
  • I could remove it, but it occurs in other sources, so they must think its important. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was allowed to enter and leave the ghetto at any time and his daughter was not required to live in the ghetto, even though other half-Jews were confined within the ghetto." I might change "within the ghetto" to "there", but also, I would either use or link to from "half-Jews", mischling.
  • I changed the half-Jew link to mischling, but left the other. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From there they moved to West Germany as Jewish aliyah." Aliyah, when used to refer to a person outside the context of Jewish synagogue ritual, is usually in reference to immigration to Israel by a Jew. They would not have been regarded as Jewish, I suspect.
  • They stretched the definitions of "Jewish" and "Polish" to get the necessary papers to be allowed across the Iron Curtain. Did they meet the technical definition of "aliyah", I don't know, but that's how they got across the border. Renata (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask, if you have it handy, for how the source refers to this? I'm just trying to figure a better phrasing. Aliyah is the single form of the noun anyway. The female plural is "aliyot" (I would not change it immediately).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the people in the Legacy section who comment on Gens seem favorably disposed to him. How then is it stated that his role was controversial?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll address this quickly and will work on the rest of these comments tomorrow. Gens himself is not singled out by historians as a particularly "bad" person, but the Judenrats as a whole are controversial. Raoul Hilberg, in particular, saw all the members of any Judenrat as collaborators and that they prevented active resistance to the Germans. Since Hilberg, there has been much more of a swing in historical thought to the fact that resistance came in other varieties than just armed uprisings (the only kind Hilberg recognized) and recognition of the fact that the Judenrat (as well as the Jews as a whole) didn't really have any choices, much less good choices. There has been a definite swing away from the idea that the Jews just passively acquised in their murder (or in Hoess' opinion, were just like sheep to a slaughterhouse). And the play that is about Vilnius, casts him in a rather negative light. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clearer (and more concise), the role of member of the Judenrat or head of the Jewish police is considered controversial, thus why I wrote that in my nomination statement. There isn't nearly as much written specifically on Gens as an individual that sees him as controversial beyond the norm for the positions he held. He certainly is not considered as difficult as Chaim Rumkowski, but he's not nearly as "sainted" as Adam Czerniakow. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might put in a little bit about how they in general have been regarded, then. As you point out, it is controversial. I'm not sure a play does it, after all, it's not a historical paper. If these favorable opinions of Gens are fruit of a reaction against a hard-line position, than I don't think it's a bad idea to mention what that position is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OKay, I think I've addressed all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Just the points on legacy and aliyah,the rest looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look over the introductory bits I've added. I'll add that even the worst critics of the councils don't generally think Gens was as corrupt as Rumkowski. I'll leave the aliyah bit for a while longer, but if @Renata3: doesn't have something within a reasonable time period, I'll just cut phrase, and leave in that they did go to West Germany. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the source. Good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep it watchlisted, but at this time I feel comfortable Supporting. Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Very interesting article; thanks for bringing it this far. Just a few points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised that the term "Ashkenazi" makes no appearance in this article. Do we have any sources that could be used to bring in Gens' ethnicity in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen nothing that gives his ethnic background. It's pretty clear that he was not really a very religiously observant person nor that he came from an observant family, but that can only be inferred from the lack of information on he and the family doing religious things. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father was a merchant and Gens was the oldest of four sons. Gens attended a Russian-language primary school and then a secondary school in Šiauliai.[2]" I appreciate that both sentences are likely bolstered by the same source, but both sentences are saying quite different things and it can give the appearance that the first sentence is simply unreferenced. For that reason I would definitely duplicate that citation at the end of both sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer to NOT do such, as it's frankly silly and we wouldn't do that in a scholarly publication. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mood." and that" - best be rid of that full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I left it, but rephrased "Dr. N. Karni, who was a cadet with Gens, said that he "had great personal charm. I do not remember him ever being in a bad mood." Karni also felt Gens had "leadership qualities..." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His participation in the" - the His could be read as a reference to Karni, rather than Gens, so I would change "His" to "Gens'" (and accordingly replace the later "Gens" to "his"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • "He belonged to Brith ha-Hayal, an organization for military reservists" - perhaps "He belonged to Brith ha-Hayal, a Jewish organization for military reservists"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gens was fired from his job." - do we know why? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the exact reason, no. I'd assume that it was because he was a Lithuanian nationalist and army reservist, but it is never explicitly stated as such in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Germans entered Vilnius" - perhaps make it clear that this was the German Army. And perhaps add a bit more about this being part of World War 2. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germans murdered" - semantic quibble on what is a very sensitive subject (so apologies upfront), but would "killed" be more appropriate here? "Murdered" implies a sense of illegality, and I'm not sure if this act was technically illegal under German law in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since many Germans were convicted for crimes against humanity after the war for their participation in the Holocaust, I'm pretty comfortable with "murdered" here (and elsewhere). The legal morass of whether German law was actually legally binding during Hitler's rule (especially those parts where Hitler simply ruled by decree or worse, did not issue a decree but still ordered something done) is bad enough, but then you get into the whole problem of that morass of legal issues being applied to conquered territory and the "laws of war". In general, most historians of the Holocaust have no problem with using "murdered" to refer to the killing of Jews (and others) during the Holocaust. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a Nazi-period ghetto" - this is the first time that the Nazis have been mentioned in any form, so perhaps it would be best to introduce them briefly beforehand, for instance when mentioning the German invasion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, I've followed recent historians of the Holocaust who generally use "Germans" rather than "Nazis" to refer to those people who were perpetrators of the Holocaust. Here, we're not referring to the period, but the time, so we can stick with "Nazi-era" or we can just go with "an unusual arrangement for a ghetto during World War II", which ever you prefer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More forthcoming (and ping me in a week if I've forgotten). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add my Support! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:JewishGhettoPlaque_Vilnius_(cutted).JPG: since Lithuania doesn't have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No clue, since I didn't take it. We can replace with File:Vilna1.jpg, but we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for the ghetto and pictures. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

A very interesting if disturbing read. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a short list of minor suggestions mostly related to prose and style.
General
  • The 10-digit ISBNs should be converted to 13 digits. A converter lives here.
  • I'm unaware that we require that for the FA criteria. I've used the ISBNs that were in the given work. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you may be right. During a recent FAC, I was asked by another editor to change the 10s to 13s, and I assumed that was now the case with all FAs. (Years had passed between my last FA nom and this recent one). The change seemed to me to have no downside. Is there a good reason not to convert them? I ask this partly because since the nom in question, I've been converting the 10s in my other FAs as well as elsewhere when I have time. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two images need alt text.
  • Per Niki's comments above, I've removed the plaque image, so it's down to one image. I'm not sure that I can improve on the caption for alt text - suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might try alt=A faded rectangular work permit issued in 1941 to Uri Elichski. Finetooth (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added "faded" and the name to the caption, which makes the caption fit the alt text proposed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • ¶1 "Dr. N. Karni" – Rather than the academic title, "Dr.", can he be identified as "N. Karni, a physician" or something like that? Or is the title necessary or meaningful at all in this context?
  • Removed the "Dr." as it's not necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aktions of 1941
  • ¶2 "with Gens pulling aside the third child" – Replace "with plus -ing" construction with "and Gens pulled aside the third child"?
  • ¶4 "when survivors began arriving back in the ghetto..." – Trim by one word? "returning to" rather than "arriving back in"?
  • ¶4 "all of them female" – If they were all adults, I'd prefer "women" to "female". Female often sounds slightly dehumanizing to me even when that's not the speaker's (writer's) conscious intent.
  • As a female, I don't see it, honestly. If you're really concerned about it, I can change it, but I really don't see the dehumanizing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relations with the Judenrat
  • ¶3 "Previous to this... ". – Trim by one word to "Before this..."?
  • ¶3 "Previous to this, justice was administered solely by Gens and his policemen, and still retained some judicial functions over injuries to policemen, escapes from the jail, or leaving the ghetto without leave." – I find this confusing. Should the second part of the sentence say, "after this, Gens' department still retained some judicial functions over injuries to policemen, escapes from the jail, or leaving the ghetto without leave."?
  • ¶3 "The Jewish police force was accused by some residents of taking bribes at the gates leading into the ghetto." – Flip to active voice: "Some residents accused the Jewish police force of taking bribes at the gates leading into the ghetto."?
  • ¶4 "Weisskopf's house was then searched by the ghetto police and when contraband was found, the tailor was arrested, held in jail for four days, and lost his position running the workshop." – Flip to active voice? "The ghetto police then searched Weisskopf's house, found contraband, arrested him, and jailed him for four days, after which he lost his position running the workshop."
Views and policies
  • ¶1 "His leadership style is described by historian Michael Marrus... " – Flip to active voice: "Historian Michael Marrus describes... "?
  • ¶1 "bringing together some of the community leaders for a colloquia to discuss Jewish history..." – Either "a colloquium" or "colloquia" with no "a" before it.
Welfare and cultural efforts
  • ¶1 "in charge of supervising employers who utilized children" – "Used", a good four-letter word, rather than "utilized"?
  • Went with "charge of supervising bosses who employed children" instead... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "property they left with gentiles outside the ghetto..." – Link gentiles?
Personal privileges and family
  • "One was that he was not required to wear the yellow badge... " – Tighten by deleting "One was that"?
Death
  • ¶1 "The Gestapo said that he was killed for being in contact with the FPO and funneling money to them." – Since Gens had to be in contact with the FPO to funnel money to them, shorten to "The Gestapo said they killed him for funneling money to the FPO."?
  • ¶2 "The ghetto was liquidated between 22 and 24 September 1943,[21] with 3,600 residents going to labor camps (including 2,000 sent to labor camps in Vilnius), 5,000 women and children going to Majdanek where they were gassed to death, and a few hundred elderly and sick were sent to Ponary and shot." – Non-parallel construction. Delete "were" from "elderly and sick were sent to Ponary". Or, perhaps better, split the complicated sentence: "The ghetto was liquidated between 22 and 24 September 1943. Three thousand six hundred residents went to labor camps (including 2,000 sent to labor camps in Vilnius); 5,000 women and children went to Majdanek, where they were gassed to death; and a few hundred elderly and sick were sent to Ponary and shot."
  • ¶3 "They were informed by a Jewish policeman that Gens had been shot and that the Gestapo was looking for them." – Flip to active voice: "A Jewish policeman informed them that... "?
  • ¶3 "In 1945, they managed to obtain papers..." – Trim to "In 1945, they obtained papers..."? This change would eliminate the repetition of "managed to".
Legacy
  • ¶1 "The role of the Judenrats has been a controversial one." – Tighten to "The role of the Judenrats has been controversial."?
  • ¶1 "... they faced conflicting sets of goals and that had essentially no power to change the demands the Germans made of them." – Something's amiss. Perhaps "... they faced conflicting sets of goals and had essentially no power to change the demands the Germans made of them."?
  • All looks good. I leave the two open questions about ISBNs and alt text to your discretion, though I would appreciate knowing your thoughts about converting 10s to 13s. Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support by auntieruth[edit]

This is superb, and yes, it's necessary to seek some balance about this controversial man. I agree with finetooth's comments (above). And I'll reread after you've finished addressing the unfinished ones. In the meantime, I also have a couple of questions:

  • why is "unregistered" (as in unregistered job) in quotes? Is this simply an off the books job? a black market job? why cannot it just be unregistered?
    • I've removed the quotes. I no longer remember why it went in quotes to begin with... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • second, I hiccuped on the word "illegals" in one of the notes. Could you clarify this but not use the word "illegals" (or the quotes)? Undocumented probably isn't sufficient, but .... auntieruth (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence the footnote is attached to defines the "illegals". I can remove the quotes, but the term is pretty common in the sources for ghetto residents without work permits/papers/etc. I'll go ahead and remove the quotes, but the alternatives are much more wordy ... i.e. "residents without work permits". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • given how common the term is today to refer to people present in a state space illegally, I'd be inclined to say residents without work permits....
  • I've gone with "Most of without permits were able to secure them during 1942." in the explanatory footnote and left the article text alone. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • remaining residents were "chased" to Ponary again, quotes around a word--pursued to Ponary? auntieruth (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check this in a minute but given normal German procedures, I'm guessing the quotes were in the original and they really mean "pursued to Ponary on foot at a too-fast pace while being beaten and shot and abused"... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's "chased" in the source. I've removed the quote marks because there really isn't a better word to use for what would have happened. I could use "driven" but that might lead to confusion with readers thinking they were taken in vehicles, when they weren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen both of ya'lls comments but am out of town until Wednesday night, so I'll get to these Thursday morning. Happy Fourth of July! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And think I've got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as the comments by others above are addressed. auntieruth (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • I haven't read all the others, so may conflict. Anyway:
  • " He married a non-Jew and worked at several jobs, including teaching, accountancy, and as an administrator." Rather awkward grammatical twist. "worked at several jobs, including as a teacher, accountant, and an administrator." maybe.
  • "He was sent to officers' school and completed the schooling as a junior lieutenant" - officers usually get trained not schooled - also avoids near-repetition.
  • "In May 1942, Gens secured German permission for residents of the ghetto to sell belongings or property they left with gentiles outside the ghetto." gentiles used and linked, but we have had 2 "non-Jewish" unlinked before. I suppose that is ok.
    • I"m only seeing the one "non-Jewish" mentions, describing Gens' wife... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gens started a theater in the ghetto, which was the site of poetry readings as well as the production of new and old plays." site is a bit odd to me - "where .... took place" or something might be better.
    • Now "Gens started a theater in the ghetto, where poetry readings as well as the production of new and old plays took place." Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if "Legacy" is the right word for the last section (except for the play). "Historians' analysis" or something maybe. I'd be tempted to move the historians higher up, maybe even some into the lead.
  • Grim stuff, but a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much; happy to Support Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • References formatted consistently.
  • Why the entry in the further reading section?
  • Earwigs copyvio clear.
  • FN 59. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 221. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 70. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 73. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 77. material is cited and faithful to source.

Spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because it's one of the few other entries for him. It doesn't add anything, but it does corroborate the information here. I'd rather cover my behind by having it listed to show I did consult it, than not. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, are you signing off on source reliability too? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - they look good/reliable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 [36].

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Macedonia, home of Alexander the Great, deserves an article worthy of His Majesty's name! It is the will of the gods and the birthright of the Macedonians to both conquer and rule this little section of Wikipedia. Like the glorious Philippeion of Olympia, Greece erected by Alexander's one-eyed father Philip II, this article has been constructed for the glory of Macedonia (no, not that Macedonia you pleb). Although it has attained the rank of Good Article status, anything less than Featured Article status would be a shameful insult and blight on the cherished name and memory of the Argead dynasty.

Other editors and I have worked hard to bring to you the present incarnation of this article, which is well-sourced, well-illustrated (with all the appropriate copyright tags/licensing), meticulously proportioned and balanced, and linked to appropriate sub articles via Wikipedia:Summary style (e.g., History, Government, Rise of Macedon, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian army, etc.). In regards to the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size and the current size of this article, please view our community discussion and consensus (external link). I consider that talk page discussion as necessary reading before any of you raise any sort of objection about the article's size, which has been drastically reduced even since the successful GA nomination, thanks to the creation of new sub-articles (authored by yours truly and currently GA candidates if anyone's interested in reviewing them as well). I look forward to the nomination process and I hope that we can have a thought-provoking, civil discussion on how to improve the article if necessary. Kind regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Philip II": Inconsistency. It would probably be best to use "Philip II" at first occurrence in each paragraph and "Philip" after that, unless there's another Philip involved.
  • "utilized": overutilized. Substitute "used" for some of these.
  • "allegedly sent two-hundred ships": alleged by whom? If you're pretty sure he didn't do this, delete this phrase, and if you're pretty sure he did it, based on the sources, drop "allegedly".
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another monumental achievement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As you've suggested, I got rid of the word "allegedly" in the sentence about Philip V's navy. However, I can find only two instances in the entire article where the word "utilized" has been employed. Are you sure that this represents an overuse of that term? Also, "Philip II" is numbered precisely because in that sub-section and in the next we refer to his son and one of his successors, Philip III of Macedon (or Philip III Arrhidaeus). In the following sub-sections we also discuss the reigns of Philip IV of Macedon and Philip V of Macedon. More than that, there's only one monarch in this entire article who has skirted the rule of repeatedly having a Latin numeral placed after his name (minus those monarchs who had unique names that weren't repeated), and that's Alexander the Great. He is mentioned once in the article as Alexander III of Macedon, yet we shorten this to Alexander or just Alexander the Great because that is how the general public knows him. This follows the rule of Wikipedia:Common names where, for instance, we refer to the politician Bill Clinton as such, not by his full name William Jefferson Clinton. Likewise, we do not use the full names or even the surnames of well known performance artists Bono (Paul Hewson) or Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). I actually attempted to have Alexander the Great mentioned as "Alexander III" in every instance, but these Latin numerals were removed by another editor. I did not want to engage in an edit war and I recognized the Wiki guideline about the use of common names, so that's why the article looks the way it does now. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to take the second paragraph of the lead, for instance: it's Philip II, then Philip, then Philip II again, and no other Philip has been mentioned. I think your basic approach is sound ... you want to keep reminding people you're talking about Philip II, but that gets tiresome so you mix in Philip. I just think that it's somewhat conventional to give the full name once in a paragraph and the short name thereafter, unless, in that paragraph, there are other Philips to consider. Again, great work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: thank you VERY much for pointing these out, as I was unaware of them. Another editor made some copyedits to the first few sub-sections recently and I hadn't noticed these specific changes in removing the Latin numerals after Philip's name in some places. I have edited the article to make it clear once again exactly which Philip of Macedon we are discussing in each and every instance. Once again, the only monarch who is allowed to shirk this rule is Alexander the Great, who is also named as Alexander III of Macedon in a couple places just to avoid any and all ambiguity. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer, I meant "Philip II" at first occurrence in a paragraph and "Philip" thereafter, where it's unambiguous. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added: use your discretion on what "unambiguous" means. In the second paragraph of the lead, no one else named Philip has been mentioned. Later on, you could argue that if another Philip has been mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, then "Philip" might be ambiguous. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...it's fine the way it is now, I think. Thanks once again for your review! Pericles of AthensTalk 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads, and I'm happy to see Tony working on that below. Two suggestions:
  • Is it possible to slide "Ancient: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]" over to the right, into a third line in the infobox, or to put it in a footnote?
  • "during most of its existence initially" is a little off; compare with "the whole time at first". One option is to start with "initially" and then put "during most of its existence" before the other two dynasties, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: hello again! I have shifted that pronunciation of "Makedonia" into a footnote as you've suggested. I've also reworded that sentence about the royal dynasties of Makedonia, although I did not use your suggested fix. The new sentence reads as thus: "The kingdom was founded and at first ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties." I think it sounds crisper this way. Sometimes simpler is better. --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps
  • Coins are considered 3D works and so should not generally use the PD-Art tag. Sculptural works definitely should not use this tag
  • File:Coin_of_Amyntas_III-161113.jpg needs a licensing tag for the photo
  • File:Pella_House_atrium.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
  • File:Aristoteles_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:20100913_Ancient_Theater_Marwneia_Rhodope_Greece_panoramic_3.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: hello! Thanks for taking a look at these. The source info for Pella House Atrium is now fixed. However, I have a couple questions. Should the coins still contain PD tags, just not PD-Art ones? Since they are ancient art? What should I do for sculptural works? I am confused, since you say the sculpture of Aristotle and Theatre of Rhodope need copyright tags for the original work. Please be specific as to which precise tags are needed for each of these items, and I will gladly fix them. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PD-US and PD-70 would apply to most of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: hi again. I have done as you've requested and fixed the license tags for each image of a sculpted work of art or coin. Please let me know if there are any pictures that I might have missed or that need further editing. I have also enlarged each and every map image in the article as you've suggested (minus the map in the infobox of the lead section). I hope all of these latest edits suffice! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 15:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks well-written. I read the lead carefully:
    • "For a brief period, his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world, the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Could that be: "For a brief period his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world – the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Placement of the dash (or pair of dashes) affects the meaning; currently, with just commas it's ambiguous.
    • "advances in philosophy, engineering, and science were spread throughout the ancient world"—Is "throughout" an overstatement?
    • "and even possessed democratic municipal governments"—does one "possess" a government?
    • "New cities were also founded"—is "also" needed? Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: hi Tony! Long time no see; I remember you reviewing more than one of my featured articles in the past. It's good to see that you're still around! Thanks for taking the time to review the lead section. I have decided to amend that section according to your suggestions. I did change "possessed democratic municipal governments" to "had democratic municipal governments," although I'm not quite sure if this change was necessary. The subject of this statement is "local governments", which I believe can possess things. Right? There are multiple definitions for the word "possess," one of them being "have as an ability, quality, or characteristic," as opposed to the more common definition: "have as belonging to one; to own," or "have possession of as distinct from ownership." I believe that my original intent in writing that sentence followed the first definition here. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perecles, you're welcome. "while a few local governments within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had/possessed democratic municipal governments with popular assemblies" – I think simpler is better. But either way, it brings up something I didn't quite notice before: governments have governments? Perhaps it could be "a few local areas ... and even had governments with popular assemblies"? Tony (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: ha! How did I not notice this before? I have reworded the sentence as follows: "The authority of Macedonian kings was theoretically limited by the institution of the army, while a few municipalities within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had democratic governments with popular assemblies." That's the most optimal solution, I think. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the sourcing, have not judged content. Source review - note that I haven't read the article itself. I reviewed this version. Gotta sweat some of the small stuff.

  • General comments
    • As with Sino-Roman relations, only the first place of publication listed on a book's title page is needed. See e.g. Chicago Manual of Style 14.135: "The place to be incuded is the one that usually appears on the title page but sometimes on the copyright page of the book cited—the city where the publisher's main editorial offices are located. Where two or more cities are given ("Chicago and London," for example, appears on the title page of the print edition of this manual), only the first normally included in the documentation."
    • I really don't like the use of ampersands. I can (begrudgingly) accept their use in individual citations for length reasons, but they should be replaced with "and" in the bibliography.
    • Given the quantity and length of some of your discursive footnotes, I'd recommend splitting them into a separate section. See WP:EXPLNOTE.
    • Should the Encyclopædia Britannica appear in further reading or external links? One, not both!
  • Citations
    • Why the full citations for Liddell and Scott in refs 9 and 10? Should be Liddell and Scott 1940.
    • You need to decide whether you're going to end all the citations with or without a period. ;-)
    • Ref 237 has a hanging semi-colon.
    • Not a fan of the quote in ref 266. I'd integrate it into the main article or put it into your own words. Same with ref 352 and 353. Note that it's not clear which ref covers the quote in 352.
    • "seems far less convinced" and "seems less convinced" read a little bit like OR, although I totally understand what you're trying to do there. I might suggest rewording to "Errington is more skeptical ..."
  • Sources section
    • E. J. Brill or Brill? Be consistent.
    • Ahmed's Chaghatai is from a self-published source.
    • Why are you citing a chapter by Bolman in a book written by Bolman? This should be cited in the usual style for books.
    • Is the 2002 edition of Bringmann in German? It's not coming up in Worldcat.
    • Chugg's Alexander's Lovers is by Lulu, a self-published source.
    • I'm not sure that A. Giuffrè was the editor of de Francisci's Arcana Imperii II? Worldcat has that as the publisher.
    • Hofmann's Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen - in German, I assume? Should be noted in the citation.
    • I wonder if there's a better source than Joseph, which appears to be the quasi-personal webspace for an OSU professor? If kept, you should standardize the citation to Joseph 2004 in ref 292.
    • Renault's The Nature of Alexander the Great ought to be cited to the original source. I'm not really doubting that Open Road Integrated Media messed with the text, assuming that the line "a focus on publishing ebook editions of older works of literature and nonfiction" in its Wikipedia article is accurate, but it really doesn't come across as reliable with a publisher like that. Full info is on Worldcat.
    • Why are you citing two different editions of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pericles' reply

@The ed17: greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review this article as well as Sino-Roman relations, even after it's successful FAC. I've addressed each and every one of your points, with the sole exception of your quibble about quotations in the citations (now placed in a new "notes" section). However, I have removed one of quotations that you viewed as problematic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the Chicago Manual of Style and for that matter Harvard style, I have removed all the additional publication locations/cities.
  • I have removed all ampersands in the article that were not critical components to some of the URLs.
  • Encyclopædia Britannica now appears only in the "External links" section.
  • As I mentioned above, I have created a new "notes" ref group above citations for all those lengthy, discursive footnotes.
  • I fixed the inline citations from online sources, e.g. Liddell and Scott 1940.
  • All footnotes now contain uniform punctuation; feel free to point out any mistakes if they still exist. I'm pretty sure that I expunged every non-conforming, deviating instance of punctuation.
  • Changed "seems less convinced" to "is skeptical" per your suggestion.
  • Changed every instance of "E.J. Brill" to "Brill".
  • Chaghatai wasn't actually cited in the article, so that was simple enough to remove. I've also removed Chugg as you've suggested.
  • You are mistaken about Elizabeth Bolman. She is not the author of that book; she's the editor! It contains chapters written by various authors. She happens to be one of the authors writing some of the book chapters, not all of them.
  • Bringmann's 2002 publication must be in German. In either case the 2007 edition is in English. I simply forgot to add the translator's name (i.e. W.J. Smyth), which I have done a moment ago.
  • You're absolutely correct about A. Giuffrè being the publisher, not the editor. That was an honest mistake on my part, one that has now been fixed.
  • I have specified that Hofmann's book is in German.
  • I have fixed the online source citation for Joseph 2001. As for removing it, I'd like to see a second opinion on that. It's at least an academic source, i.e. a website hosted by an academic institution. It's also listed among other sources in that citation. If the citation relied on that single source, then perhaps it would be problematic. His opinion is at least supported by a few other authors who've had their books published by academic presses.
  • I have changed Renault's publication details as you've suggested.
  • Although I've removed the additional version of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader, it exists there as a remnant of how the article was before I conducted a massive removal and shift of material into the existing sub-article Ancient Macedonians and new sub-articles History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lengthy quotations in citations 266, 352, and 353, I've removed the first one and reworded the sentence in order to use my own words instead of a quotation. However, I'm keeping the quotations in 352 and 353 (after distinguishing which "Errington" source the quotation came from in citation 352). I don't see a problem with these, since they aren't incredibly lengthy, just single paragraphs each. It would be one thing if I quoted half of their books. Then we'd have a copyright issue. There are featured articles on Wikipedia, such as the one on Pericles, which utilize sizable quotations in the body of the article, let alone in the footnotes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems more like a pet peeve of yours than an actual Wiki guideline that must be followed. In either case, thanks once again for reviewing the article. I hope that you view my recent changes to the article as being satisfactory. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PericlesofAthens, just a note that I've seen your reply and will return here asap. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: well, you can take your time, I think. This review doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyway. I remember the days of old (c. 2007-2011) when featured article candidates used to get 20 to 30 comments/supports/oppositions within a single week. Now the FAC page is something of a ghost town. Kinda spooky. And also very sad. --Pericles of AthensTalk 22:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PericlesofAthens: Times are changing, and not always for the better. :-/ Your changes look good. I've supported above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: thank you kindly for your support! Pericles of AthensTalk 19:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative support - I like what I read - not seeing any glaring prose errors - the prose is good enough that I just slip into "reader" rather than "corrector" mode, which is a good sign. It appears comprehensive. I do wonder whether the History material is long compared with the rest of the material but then again, it is pretty convoluted. 85 kb of readable prose is pretty long, but I'm not hugely fussed by that. The only thing i'd definitely do is remove or drastically trim the see also section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: thanks for your support! I have followed your advice and removed about half of the links in the "See also" section. As noted above, the current size of the article has been reviewed by other active editors and a consensus has been reached that the prose size is appropriate. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but 85 kb is also a bit too high of an estimate since it includes the lead section. I just checked by doing the "page size" test, which always seems to include the lead section for some reason. The actual prose body is perhaps a bit closer to 80 KB in size. --Pericles of AthensTalk 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead
  • "Ancient Macedonians": is this commonly used as a proper noun? I would expect "ancient" to be an adjective modifying "Macedonian", and be lowercase – as it seems to be used in the article on ancient Macedonians.
  • Lead implies that Alexander was mainly motivated in his invasion of Persia by desire for retaliation against an invasion which had happened 100+ years before he was born: is this accurate?
  • Successor states mentioned in the lead in the paragraph before it is explained that Alexander's empire broke up upon his death: perhaps this should be reordered
Etymology
Rise of Macedon
  • "Philip II practiced polygamy and married seven wives with perhaps only one that did not involve the loyalty of his aristocratic subjects or new allies." This clause is confusing. Does it mean that of Philip's wives, he married six for political reasons but the seventh perhaps for personal reasons?

Only read as far as the end of the section "Rise of Macedon" so far. I shall try to come back and finish the article off later today, but no significant concerns so far. Certainly the article is comprehensive and thoroughly referenced. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles' reply

Lead
  • Changed "Ancient Macedonians" to "ancient Macedonians"
  • The Persian invasions of Greece during the first quarter of the 5th century BC witnessed events such as Xerxes' decision to burn Athens to the ground. The Athenians faced total destruction and subjugation yet prevailed at the naval Battle of Salamis. Meanwhile, as explained in the article, the Macedonians were allied vassals of the Persians and aided them during this invasion, yet broke this alliance once the Persians fled Greece. The Greeks had a long collective memory; the burning of the greatest city in the Greek world was not something they were just going to forget. Philip II and Alexander were no doubt eager to champion the Greek cause of invading Persia because it suited their political interests and enhanced their own prestige while at the same time placating their Greek subjects and allies, many of whom viewed the Macedonians as semi-barbarian. It was more or less a means of further cementing the Macedonians' Greek identity by addressing the chief concern of the Greeks, although the Spartans perhaps did not share this since they sometimes favored a loose alliance with the Persians. I'm not going to explain all of this in the article, since it is not the purpose of this article to do that. If someone wants to know more about the Greeks' heated obsession with vengeance and invading Persia, there are plenty of links to other articles that they can explore. This article is bloated enough and there is no need to expand it, least of all with a lengthy expose about the Greeks' reasoning behind the invasion of Persia.
Etymology
Rise of Macedon
  • Yes, that's what it means. You and everyone else can read the "note" at the end of the sentence if you want to know more. In sum, Plutarch and Athenaeus argued that Philip's marriage to Cleopatra Eurydice was only for love and was spurred by a midlife crisis. The present-day historian Sabine Müller is skeptical about this claim. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • There is a "clarification needed'" in the Kingship and the royal court section.
  • "The reign of Philip II (359–336 BC)" As the three dynasties are mentioned above, I think it would be helpful to specify "The reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC)"
  • "Sparta was kept isolated" This sounds POV. It was no doubt Alexander's version. The Spartans would have said that even he did not attempt to conquer them.
  • "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC." This sounds more like an excuse than a reason, and I cannot see where it is supported in the main text.
  • "In the ensuing wars of Alexander the Great, Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire" The second 'Alexander' could be replaced with 'he'.
  • "the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." This appears to say that Greek civilisation started with Alexander. Maybe "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
  • "The Macedonian kings, who wielded absolute power and commanded state resources such as gold and silver, facilitated mining operations to mint currency, finance their armies and, by the reign of Philip II, a Macedonian navy." This is out of place as it follows discussion of the results of Alexander's conquests. I suggest moving it up to follow "subordinate to Achaemenid Persia", apart from Philip's navy, which could be added to comments about his army.
  • "the point where Macedonia enters the historical record, since very little is known about the kings before his reign." Presumably not just the kings - I would say "about the kingdom".
  • "Historian Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" This is too wordy. What is wrong with "suggests"?
  • "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to strike a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, yet this proposal was rejected." This does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to propose a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, but the offer was rejected."
  • "The Athenian statesman Pericles promoted colonization of the Strymon River" Why did this affect Macedonia? Was the river in Macedon?
  • "The latter was eventually besieged by Athens" Was Potidaea conquered?
  • "their capture of Therma and Beroea" I suggest "their capture of the Macedonian cities Therma and Beroea"
  • "Yet when Argos suddenly switched sides as a pro-Athenian democracy, the Athenian navy was able to form a blockade against Macedonian seaports and invade Chalcidice in 417 BC." This is an example of a stylistic quirk which I find very irritating, of the frequent inappropriate use of the word "yet", as if something surprising will follow, when there is nothing surprising about it. Another example is "Yet when Archelaus I was assassinated (perhaps following a homosexual love affair with royal pages at his court), the kingdom was plunged into chaos," It is not surprising that the assassination of the king plunged the kingdom into chaos. "Yet" is used 28 times in the article, and I think it would be helpful if you checked each one to see whether it is the right word in the context.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by PericlesofAthens
  • @Dudley Miles: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I have fixed the clarification tag and wording in that particular sentence of the royal court sub-section.
  • I added "Argead king" before "Philip II" as you've suggested.
  • I reworded "Sparta was kept isolated" to "Sparta remained defiant", which is true in any case.
  • I have removed "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC" from the lead section and instead have provided an explanation of the underlying reasons for the Macedonian-led invasion of Persia in the "Rise of Macedon" sub-section.
  • Replaced that second "Alexander" with "he" as you have recommended.
  • I reworded that sentence in the lead so that it now reads as "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
  • I have decided not to shift the sentence about the powers of the Macedonian kings and the state resources at their disposal up to the place you have suggested (i.e. "briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia"), since I think it would awkwardly interrupt the narrative about Macedonia's early history. To be honest, this is the only suggestion of yours that I find strongly objectionable. Your other suggestions are superb, though. ;)
  • I have changed "about the kings" to "about the kingdom" as you've proposed for the History section.
  • I have changed "Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" to "Robert Malcolm Errington suggests".
  • I reworded the sentence about Alexander I serving as an Achaemenid diplomat to Athens.
  • I have clarified that the Strymon River was next to the Kingdom of Macedonia.
  • I have clarified that the Athenian siege of Potidaea was ultimately unsuccessful.
  • I have reworded the passage about the Athenian capture of Therma and Beroea.
  • I have expunged many instances of the word "yet" from this article and most certainly every extraneous use of the word. There are still instances of the word "yet", which I'm not sure will irritate you or not, but I feel as though performing a Nazi-style Holocaust of each and every "yet" is perhaps a bit much. Lol. The word "but" is obviously a fine substitute in many of these cases, so I've decided to mix things up a bit by using that conjunction a bit more often.
  • I look forward to further comments and suggestions. All the best, Pericles of AthensTalk 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "led by Bardylis". Bardylis should be linked.
  • Chalcidian League. As you have said that the League was dissolved in 379, it would be helpful to explain that it was later re-established.
  • "The treaty stipulated that Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims and Amphipolis in return for the enslaved Athenians as well as guaranteed that Philip II would not attack Athenian settlements in the Thracian Chersonese." There are several problems with this sentence. 1. I do not understand "Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims". Athens could only relinquish its own claims, not Macedonian ones 2. What is meant by "coastal claims" - territory on the coast or the sea? 3. "in return for the enslaved Athenians" should be "in return for the release of the enslaved Athenians" 4. "guaranteed" should be "guarantees"
  • "Meanwhile, Phocis and Thermopylae were captured," Presumably by Philip, but it would be helpful to say so.
  • "Philip II was elected as the leader (hegemon) of its council (synedrion) and its commander-in-chief (strategos autokrator) of a forthcoming campaign to invade the Achaemenid Empire." I think this should be "the commander-in-chief"
  • "The Persian aid offered to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC highlighted Macedonia's strategic need" As the aid has not previously been mentioned, I would say "The Persians offered aid to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC, highlighting Macedonia's strategic need"
  • "Achaemenid encroachment, as Artaxerxes III" I suggest "Achaemenid encroachment, as the King of Persia, Artaxerxes III"
  • " the assassination of Philip II in 336 BC" The date should be in the previous paragraph.
  • "noting Philip II's choice to exclude Alexander" I would say "noting that Philip"
  • "the relegated position Alexander was given as regent of Greece" What was he relegated from and what does "regent of Greece mean?
  • "Nonetheless, Alexander III (r. 336–323 BC) was immediately proclaimed king" Why "Nonetheless"? Is there evidence that Alexander was suspected at the time?
  • "the Illyrian king Cleitus of the Dardani threatened to attack Macedonia, but Alexander took the initiative and besieged them at Pelion" The grammar is wrong here. Maybe besieged Cleitus or besieged the Dardani.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • Bardylis is already linked in that sub-section, in the previous paragraph to be exact. Linking it twice in the same sub-section would be overkill.
  • I have explained that the Chalcidian League had been reestablished in 375 BC, well before their war with Philip II.
  • That sentence about "coastal claims" is a bit vague but the gist of it is correct; the Chalcidice peninsula was a contested territory claimed by both Athens and Macedonia, although it later formed part of Macedonia proper. There are also coastal territories along the Aegean, both to the east and west of the Chalcidice, that belong to Macedonia. For instance, the Strymon River empties into the Aegean to the east of Chalcidice and the territory between them was considered Macedonian. In either case I have reworded this troubling sentence, in order to avoid any and all confusion.
  • I have specified that the Macedonians captured Phocis and Thermopylae, although I did not say Philip II, because it would be redundant to write "Philip II" twice in the same sentence.
  • I changed "its" to "the" before "commander-in-chief", as you've suggested.
  • I have reworded the passage about the Persians under Artaxerxes III providing aid to Perinthus and Byzantion.
  • I have provided a link to "Regent of Greece", where readers can be redirected if they wish to know more about this historical office.
  • I have reworded that sentence to "choosing instead for him to act as regent of Greece and deputy hegemon of the League of Corinth".
  • I have reworded that sentence to "besieged the Dardani" instead of "besieged them", given that the clause of the sentence contains a singular noun (i.e. their king Cleitus).
  • Once again, thanks for the comments and for reviewing the article! Pericles of AthensTalk 13:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further points.
  • Have you not given a detailed account of Alexander the Great's overseas conquests because you do not consider them relevant to an article about Macedonia?. As Macedonia's importance lies above all (so far as I know) in the spread of Greek culture resulting from his conquests, I think it is crucial.
  • "Leonnatus rescued Antipater by lifting the siege." Maybe "A Macedonain army led by Leonnatus rescued Antipater by lifting the siege."
  • "The beginning of Hellenistic Greece was defined by the struggle between the Antipatrid dynasty, led first by Cassander (r. 305–297 BC), son of Antipater, and the Antigonid dynasty, led by Antigonus I Monophthalmus (r. 306–301 BC)" Presumably both dynasties founded by Macedonian generals, but it would help to say so. Also Cassander r. 305-297 and Antigonus r. 306-301: as they reigned at the same time, which territories did they rule over?
  • " Antipater II killed his own mother and regent to obtain power" I thought at first you were talking about two different people - I would delete "and regent".
  • "Demetrius had his nephew Alexander V assassinated and was then proclaimed king in Macedonia" Demetrius was an Antigonid and Alexander an Antipatrid so how were they uncle and nephew? Also you say "king in Macedonia". If this means part of Macedonia, which part?
  • "which contributed to the rise of Rome now that Greek cities in southern Italy such as Tarentum became Roman allies". Perhaps "rise of Rome because Greek cites"
  • "the queen mother and regent Olympias II of Epirus" I think "the queen mother and regent of Epirus, [[Olympias II of Epirus|[Olympias II]]" would be clearer.
  • As a general point, I think the details of minor wars could usefully be cut down, as they sometimes become strings of names which do not add to understanding. I would be interested to know what other reviewers think.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • Per your suggestions, I have reworded the passages regarding Leonnatus, Cassander and Antigonus I, Antipater II, Demetrius and Alexander V, Roman allies in southern Italy, and Olympias II of Epirus.
  • However, I don't think it's necessary to discuss the shifting borders that existed in Macedonia during the civil war between Cassander and Antigonus I, at least not prior to the fateful Battle of Ipsus. The "History" section is already bloated and verbose enough as it is; such details are better suited for the History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) sub-article. There's also little need to explain the fact that Alexander V was a nephew of Demetrius, given how much intermarriage occurred among the Macedonian nobility to cement marriage alliances between their clans. Again, it's another detail that's best left for the History sub-article.
  • Your suggestion that Alexander's conquests aren't given enough weight in the article is contradicted not only by the presence of an entire sub-section dedicated to them, but also by the fact that it is a frequently recurring theme in the rest of the article (which I'm now assuming you have not yet read in full). There are plenty of links directing readers to other articles about Alexander the Great and his conquests. They can learn more about them in those articles. The chief purpose of this article is to summarize the major events as they pertain to the Kingdom of Macedonia proper, via Wikipedia:Summary style. As such, it would be highly inappropriate to meander into other topics and divert too much attention away from the main subject just to accommodate some readers who would like to know more about Alexander's eastern adventures.
  • I disagree. Alexander's conquests created a large scale Macedonian empire and led to a long term Hellenization of the culture and language of large parts of the ancient world, especially Mesopotamia and Egypt, and they are a large part of why Macedonia was important in world history. A paragraph detailing his conquests would therefore be appropriate, particularly as you describe conflicts in these territories after Alexander's death. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion that we trim details about the "minor wars" that Macedonia fought in, because you haven't cited any specific examples. Which sub-section or sub-sections are you referring to specifically? What criteria are you using to pass judgment about any of these wars being minor ones instead of major conflicts, often with dire consequences for the kingdom? Pericles of AthensTalk 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: did you finish your review of the article? It has been two weeks since you posted comments here. Do you have any outstanding objections? I'd like to wrap things up here. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. I will try to finish in the next few days. See also the comment above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 216 BC, Philip V sent a hundred light warships into the Adriatic Sea to attack Illyria, a move that did not go unnoticed by Rome" This sounds a bit odd. Was not Rome bound to notice?
  • "Although the Macedonians were perhaps only interested in safeguarding their conquered territories in Illyria,[172] the Romans were nevertheless able to thwart Philip V's ambitions in the Adriatic" I am not clear what you are saying here. You have said above that Philip's attempt to conquer Illyria failed, but now he is safeguarding his conquests - and what ambitions did the Romans thwart? (I assume that he had conquered part of Illyria and wanted to conquer the rest, but this should be clarified.)
  • "This assuaged the fear of Eumenes II that Macedonia could no longer threaten his lands in the Hellespont." The grammar seems to have gone wrong here. He feared that Macedonia could not threaten him?
  • "The preference of certain male offspring over others is questionable" Which male offspring?
  • "the king was at least occasionally pressured to oblige their demands." I think "agree to" would be better than "oblige"
  • "Although Macedonian cities nominally participated in Panhellenic events on their own accord". "on their own accord" does not sound right.
  • "Alexander the Great's royal squadron of companion cavalry were similarly numbered to the 800 cavalrymen of the sacred squadron". I assume this means that there were 800 in each, but it is not clear.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • @Dudley Miles: I'm glad to see that you are back. Per your suggestions, I have reworded the passages regarding Illyria, the Adriatic, Eumenes II and the Hellespont, the unclear rules in the royal succession of male offspring of Macedonian queens, queen consorts, or even slave women, the participation of Macedonian cities in Panhellenic conferences/games/festivals, the royal squadron of Alexander the Great versus the sacred squadron of Philip V, and changed "obliged" to "agreed" in that particular sentence about the powers of the king versus the Macedonian royal council.
  • That being said, I did not belabor the point or go into a great amount of detail about the partial control of Illyria by Macedonia, since that is clarified in the very next paragraph that states "the Roman Republic negotiated the Treaty of Phoenice in 205 BC, ending the war and allowing the Macedonians to retain some captured settlements in Illyria." The article also never said anything about Philip failing to conquer all of Illyria or parts of it, only that his fleet of a hundred light warships were ordered to retreat once the Romans began patrolling the Illyrian coast. The article also says nothing of Philip being able to defeat Scerdilaidas of the Ardiaean Kingdom in Illyria. Indeed, the opposite was true, since Philip was forced to make peace with Scerdilaidas' successor Pleuratus III. I thought it was a tangential thing to mention, but perhaps this should be explained in the article to avoid confusion. However, I didn't want to get ahead of myself by mentioning all of this before explaining that the Treaty of Phoenice ended the First Macedonian War.
  • As for your rebuttal about the article requiring more information of Alexander's conquests, I agree that it is not a minor issue, but the problem I have with adding substantial new material is the obvious disobedience of the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size. Again, if you or other readers would like to know more about Alexander or his conquests, then perhaps we could spruce up the already existing History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) article to accommodate this information. Literally every section of this article ("History", "Institutions", "Society and Culture", "Technology and Engineering", "Currency, Finances, and Resources") describes the profound impact of his reign on Macedonia and other regions of his empire. A detailed narrative of how he conquered Egypt and Mesopotamia is completely unnecessary when we have the article Wars of Alexander the Great (and for that matter it didn't take much to conquer Egypt after the Siege of Gaza). If you have very specific statements you'd like to add to the "Empire" sub-section that you consider highly relevant, please list them here (preferably in descending order of importance). Otherwise I fail to see why we should disobey WP:SIZE by adding more material to the article when it could be easily added to the History article I created for this very purpose. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "In Macedonia, politics and religion were often intertwined." There is nothing specifically Macedonian about this as it is the case in almost all societies.
  • "Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, a similar institution did not exist in the Kingdom of Macedonia." I found this comment unclear. "maintained ancestral cults" links to an article about the Ptolemaic cult of Alexander, but it does not say that the Ptolemies claimed descent from Alexander. Another point is that it would also be clearer to say that in Macedonia kings were not worshipped rather than referring to a similar institution.
  • "The bedrock of the Macedonian economy and state finances were mainly supported by logging and by mining valuable minerals such as copper, iron, gold, and silver." In Macedonia itself or conquered territories? Also, what is meant by "bedrock of"? I would delete it.
  • "By the reign of Archelaus I" I would add "in the late 5th century".
  • "archaic, perhaps Homeric, funerary rites connected with the symposium" The linked article on 'symposium' confirms my impression that it was a drinking party in Classical Greece (or a banquet as stated in this article below). Is there evidence connecting it with archaic funerary rites?
  • "bas-reliefs of the Alexander Sarcophagus" Perhaps "bas-reliefs of the late 4th century Alexander Sarcophagus"
  • "The king was capable of exploiting the mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state, although these were often leased as assets". "capable of" sounds odd to me in this context. Maybe "Some mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state were exploited by the king, but they were often leased as assets"
  • You said that you have moved a lot of material to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This is very helpful, but in my opinion there are still a lot of details in this article which belong in the sub-article. To pick a random example:
In 429 BC, during the height of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, Perdiccas II sent military aid to the Spartans at Acarnania, but the Macedonians arrived too late, allowing the Athenians to prevail at the Battle of Naupactus.[29] Athens retaliated the same year by convincing Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but the Athenians eventually declined to offer the powerful Thracian ruler any naval support in Chalcidice, perhaps out of fear of his regional ambitions.[30] Sitalces retreated from Macedonia due to a shortage of provisions for the army during winter.[31] In 424 BC, Perdiccas II helped to persuade Athenian allies in Thrace to defect and ally with Sparta.[32] In return, the Spartan general Brasidas agreed to help Perdiccas II put down the revolt of Arrhabaeus, a local ruler of Lynkestis (in Upper Macedonia), although he expressed concern over the massive Illyrian army allied with Arrhabaeus and over leaving Sparta's Chalcidian allies exposed to Athenian attacks while the Spartan army was away.[33] At the Battle of Lyncestis, the Macedonians panicked and fled before the fighting began against the forces of Arrhabaeus, enraging Brasidas, whose soldiers looted the unattended Macedonian baggage train.[34] As a result, Perdiccas II promptly switched sides and allied with the Athenians instead, blocking Brasidas' Peloponnesian reinforcements in Thessaly and forcing Arrhabaeus and other rebels to surrender and accept the Macedonian king as their suzerain lord.

This could be shortened to e.g.

Perdiccas II sided with Sparta the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat due to a shortage of provisions in winter. In 424 BC Arrhabaeus, a local ruler of Lynkestis in Upper Macedonia, rebelled against his overlord Perdiccas, and the Spartans agreed to help in putting down the revolt. However, at the Battle of Lyncestis the Macedonians panicked and fled before the fighting began, enraging the Spartan general Brasidas, whose soldiers looted the unattended Macedonian baggage train. Perdiccas then changed sides and aupported Athens, and he was able to put down Arrhabaeus's revolt.
  • The link to Arrhabaeus goes to a disambig.
  • The sections on institutions, society etc seem to me fine, but there is nothing on Macedonia's importance in spreading Greek culture to the wider ancient world, and I think you need a section on this. Even the brief the brief control over Afghanistan of Alexander and his successors had a lasting influence with several towns named after him, and in Mesopotamia and Egypt the legacy was deep and long lasting, unlike Europe outside Macedonia's immediate neighbours where (so far as I know) the Greek influence was mainly due to contact with Athens. I think you need a section on Macedonia's legacy, its nature, where it was deepest and how long it lasted. I also think, as I have said, that you need a description of Alexander's conquests, although a paragraph would be sufficient for this. The article at present has too much historical detail and not enough on why Macedonia mattered. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pericles' reply
  • @Dudley Miles: welcome again and thanks for the reply. I have clarified that it wasn't just politics and religion that were intertwined; in this specific case I made it clear that I'm referring to political and religious offices being combined. Many ancient societies had this feature but not all of them.
  • Per your second suggestion above, the sentence now reads as thus: "Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, kings were not worshiped in the Kingdom of Macedonia."
  • I removed "bedrock of" in that one sentence, although it seemed fairly clear to me, a "bedrock" implying that it was the foundation for the economy.
  • I added "in the 5th century BC" in the sentence about the Homeric funerary rites and artistic trends.
  • Yes, there is evidence linking the symposium to funerary rites, considering how Hardiman's work (Oxford, 2010) would have been scrutinized by his academic colleagues and editors well before the publication of the major compendium containing his book chapter. Aside from that, the very same sentence ends with the following: "were typified by items such as the decorative metal kraters that held the ashes of deceased Macedonian nobility in their tombs." Since kraters were more commonly used in banquets as vessels for watering down wine, I'd say that this is a sufficient example demonstrating the aforesaid connection to the symposium.
  • I have amended the next sentence in question to read as thus: "For instance, trace colors still exist on the bas-reliefs of the late 4th-century BC Alexander Sarcophagus."
  • Per your suggestion, I've reworded the somewhat awkward "capable of" sentence as the following: "Some mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state were exploited by the king, but they were often leased as assets"
  • The link to the disambiguation page Arrhabaeus is intentional and I have made a (hidden) note of it in the article.
  • Although it contains a couple typos that required fixing, I absolutely prefer your crisper paragraph about Macedonia's involvement in the Peloponnesian War and the Battle of Lyncestis. I have decided to place it in the article with very few tweaks. If you have any more suggestions about how to remove excessive details via Wikipedia:Summary style, I'm all ears, because it is difficult for me to spot this sort of thing. It certainly helps to lessen the already bloated size of the article, teetering along the edges of acceptable standards according to Wikipedia:Article size.
  • As for your assertion that the article contains "nothing on Macedonia's importance in spreading Greek culture to the wider ancient world", I think this is totally hyperbolic if not flat out incorrect, considering how the article contains the following passages:
      • "In addition to the agora, the gymnasium, the theatre, and religious sanctuaries and temples dedicated to Greek gods and goddesses, one of the main markers of a true Greek city in the empire of Alexander the Great was the presence of an odeon for musical performances.[287] This was the case not only for Alexandria in Egypt, but also cities as distant as Ai-Khanoum in what is now modern-day Afghanistan.[287]"
      • "Alexander the Great was allegedly a great admirer of both theatre and music.[284] He was especially fond of the plays by Classical Athenian tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, whose works formed part of a proper Greek education for his new eastern subjects alongside studies in the Greek language, including the epics of Homer.[285] While he and his army were stationed at Tyre (in modern-day Lebanon), Alexander had his generals act as judges not only for athletic contests but also for stage performances of Greek tragedies.[286]"
      • "It was in the more bureaucratic regimes of the Hellenistic kingdoms that succeeded Alexander the Great's empire where greater social mobility for members of society seeking to join the aristocracy could be found, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt.[274]"
      • "Foreign cults from Egypt were fostered by the royal court, such as the temple of Sarapis at Thessaloniki, while Macedonian kings Philip III of Macedon and Alexander IV of Macedon made votive offerings to the internationally esteemed Samothrace temple complex of the Cabeiri mystery cult.[262]"
      • "Following his visit to the oracle of Didyma in 334 BC that suggested his divinity, Alexander traveled to the Oracle of Zeus Ammon (the Greek equivalent of the Egyptian Amun-Ra) at the Siwa Oasis of the Libyan Desert in 332 BC to confirm his divine status.[note 38] Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, kings were not worshiped in the Kingdom of Macedonia.[268]"
      • "The Macedonian historians Marsyas of Pella and Marsyas of Philippi wrote histories of Macedonia, while the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy I Soter authored a history about Alexander and Hieronymus of Cardia wrote a history about Alexander's royal successors.[note 43] Following the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian military officer Nearchus wrote a work of his voyage from the mouth of the Indus river to the Persian Gulf.[293] The Macedonian historian Craterus published a compilation of decrees made by the popular assembly of the Athenian democracy, ostensibly while attending the school of Aristotle.[293]"
      • "The comedic playwright Menander wrote that Macedonian dining habits penetrated Athenian high society; for instance, the introduction of meats into the dessert course of a meal.[299] The Macedonians also most likely introduced mattye to Athenian cuisine, a dish usually made of chicken or other spiced, salted, and sauced meats served during the wine course.[300] This particular dish was derided and connected with licentiousness and drunkenness in a play by the Athenian comic poet Alexis about the declining morals of Athenians in the age of Demetrius I of Macedon.[301]"
      • "In addition to literary contests, Alexander the Great also staged competitions for music and athletics across his empire.[285]"
      • "Macedonian rulers also sponsored works of architecture outside of Macedonia proper. For instance, following his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), Philip II raised a round memorial building at Olympia known as the Philippeion, decorated inside with statues depicting him, his parents Amyntas III of Macedon and Eurydice I of Macedon, his wife Olympias, and his son Alexander the Great.[311]"
      • "E. W. Marsden and M. Y. Treister contend that the Macedonian rulers Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his successor Demetrius I of Macedon had the most powerful siege artillery of the Hellenistic world at the end of the 4th century BC.[315] The siege of Salamis, Cyprus, in 306 BC necessitated the building of large siege engines and drafting of craftsmen from parts of West Asia.[316]"
      • "By the end of the conquests of Alexander the Great, nearly thirty mints stretching from Macedonia to Babylon produced standard coins.[324]"
      • "The only Macedonian cavalry units attested under Alexander were the companion cavalry,[242] yet he formed a hipparchia (i.e. unit of a few hundred horsemen) of companion cavalry composed entirely of ethnic Persians while campaigning in Asia.[246] When marching his forces into Asia, Alexander brought 1,800 cavalrymen from Macedonia, 1,800 cavalrymen from Thessaly, 600 cavalrymen from the rest of Greece, and 900 prodromoi cavalry from Thrace.[247] Antipater was able to quickly raise a force of 600 native Macedonian cavalry to fight in the Lamian War when it began in 323 BC.[247] The most elite members of Alexander's hypaspistai were designated as the agema, and a new term for hypaspistai emerged after the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC: the argyraspides (silver shields).[248] The latter continued to serve after the reign of Alexander the Great and may have been of Asian origin.[note 27] Overall, his pike-wielding phalanx infantry numbered some 12,000 men, 3,000 of which were elite hypaspistai and 9,000 of which were pezhetairoi.[note 28] Alexander continued the use of Cretan archers and introduced native Macedonian archers into the army.[249] After the Battle of Gaugamela, archers of West Asian backgrounds became commonplace.[249]"
      • "When his Macedonian troops threatened mutiny in 324 BC at Opis, Babylonia (near modern Baghdad, Iraq), Alexander offered Macedonian military titles and greater responsibilities to Persian officers and units instead, forcing his troops to seek forgiveness at a staged banquet of reconciliation between Persians and Macedonians.[98]"
      • "Continuing the polygamous habits of his father, Alexander encouraged his men to marry native women in Asia, leading by example when he wed Roxana, a Sogdian princess of Bactria.[103] He then married Stateira II, eldest daughter of Darius III, and Parysatis II, youngest daughter of Artaxerxes III, at the Susa weddings in 324 BC.[104]"
  • You're perhaps right that this is still an area that is lacking and could use a few more statements to press home the idea of the Macedonian impact on the ancient world. As for this theme deserving its own entire section, though, such as "Legacy" or "Cultural influence", I'm not so sure about that. I'd like to hear what others have to say about making such a large addition to an already excessively large article per WP:SIZE constraints. I'd like to see a little more justification for it, before we go about restructuring the article. At the very least I think it would be wise to add a few more statements about cultural influence as opposed to a detailed narrative of Alexander's conquests, which as I've said before, belongs in the separate "History" sub-article if anywhere. I think a few sentences discussing the Hellenistic Greek influence in Alexander's empire and on the succeeding Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires would suffice. I'm all ears if you have very specific suggestions, like the one you had about towns named after Alexander in Afghanistan. I wonder, though, if this sort of thing is more suited for the article Ancient Macedonians than this article, since "Ancient Macedonians" provides much better coverage of cultural issues, just as my article Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) offers a much more detailed, in-depth look inside the institutions of ancient Macedonia. --Pericles of AthensTalk 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment on the symposium is very interesting. It is a pity this aspect is not covered in the Symposium article but that is of course not your fault. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment on culture was worded badly. I was thinking of a summary along the lines (no doubt with errors) of: "Macedonia played a crucial role in making the Greek language and culture dominant for centuries in large parts of the ancient world. In Egypt the Greek language was a lingua franca, and Greek customs such as x and y were incorporated into Egyptian culture. Although the Ptolemaic regime ended with the Roman conquest in 30 BC, the Greek language was still widely used in Egypt until the x century." A similar summary of Macedonian infuence on Mesopotamia. The Seleucid regime in Persia and Afghanistan short lived, but influence seen in x and y lasted until z. Minimal Macedonian influence on political systems as the successor regimes claimed divine status, a concept abhorrent to the Macedonians and other Greeks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: hi again. Your suggestions here for the contents of a hypothetical "Legacy" section are certainly reasonable, but some of them seem like a rehash of information that is already found in various parts of the article. For instance, there is already a sub-section that describes Koine Greek as a lingua franca and another (the "religious beliefs" sub-section) that explains the divine status of Macedonian monarchs versus that of other Hellenistic kingdoms. I think it would make more sense to beef up those existing sub-sections than to create a new one that simply repeats what is already found elsewhere. No? Is there a way we could create a "Legacy" section that introduces new information instead? Pericles of AthensTalk 03:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that there is significant coverage of Macedonian influence on the wider ancient world. The section describing Koine Greek as a lingua franca is exclusively about Greece. The religious beliefs section is also about Greece, apart from a passing comment at the end - which could be moved as it would be more relevant in a summary section about Macedonian influence, as an example of where the influence failed because Alexander had adopted eastern and Egyptian views on divine rulership. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

@Dudley Miles: against my better judgment given size constraints in WP:SIZE, I've nevertheless been swayed by your arguments here and decided to create a new "Legacy" section at the very end of the article. I think the three paragraphs in place now are sufficient enough to explain the legacy of the Macedonians, but feel free to suggest changes or offer a critique of the existing material. It probably won't satisfy you entirely, but then again we can't have everything we want in life, especially since Wikipedia is not a textbook and its purpose isn't to educate our readers about everything involving Macedonia. If I so much as hear one word of complaint raised on this FA page about the size of this article due to the addition of this brand new material, I will happily rip it right out and stick it over in the History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Ancient Macedonians article. For any other reviewer coming across this debate between Dudley Miles and I, speak now or forever hold your peace, because I want to get this show on the road and finish this FA review (by far the longest one I've ever seen). As it stands now, I think the new section looks fairly good, but I could always use a fresh pair of eyes to spot a mistake or something needing improvement. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A few days ago I watched a TV programme about the Chinese terracotta army which argued that Chinese ceramic and bronze sculpture in the time of the first emperor was strongly influenced by Greek art through the Macedonian conquest of Afghanistan. Covering such points would of course inflate this article far too much, but I think there is a major article to be written on the legacy of ancient Macedonia. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: thanks for the support! In my recent Featured article Sino-Roman relations, I discussed the potential Greek presence in northwestern China during the Qin and Han dynastic periods. If true the influence was tangential at best during the Hellenistic period. It seems as though the Greeks were somewhat appreciated by the Han Chinese during the Roman era, although the Chinese obviously conflated Greeks and Romans (if not all Roman subjects and citizens) as the same people of "Daqin". I don't fault the ancient Chinese for that, really, considering the distance between their empires and how most Greeks were under Roman dominion at this point anyway (at the very least, all mainland Greeks and Eastern Mediterranean peoples were Roman citizens by the early 3rd century AD). In either case, the Kingdom of Macedonia proper doesn't really have anything to do with hypothetical contacts with Qin or Han China, even if the Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian Kingdom of Central Asia was an offshoot of Alexander's conquests. Perhaps you're right about a "Legacy" article in general, although I have no immediate plans to write it. For now you and everyone else will just have to make do with the new section at the end of the article. --Pericles of AthensTalk 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence: "Before the 4th century BC, Macedonia was a small kingdom located outside of the area dominated by the great city-states of Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, and was at one time briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia." (i) Is it fluffy like that throughout? (ii) Does this sentence mix location with political subordination?

    Then: "saw the rise of Macedonia, during which the kingdom rose to"—rise/rose. These are not good signs. Tony (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: ha! Good points. I have amended the article accordingly and removed the the fluff that has irritated you. I'm just imagining your eyes twitching with rage when you read those sentences, fists clenched, OCD levels going through the roof and into the stratosphere. Lol. In my defense, I wrote most of the article, but I left much of the original lead section intact. Perhaps that was a mistake! I should have reread it more carefully after making my own little changes a while back; perhaps then I would have noticed these useless textual artifacts from a bygone age (i.e. the now distant era before I edited the article, c. January 2017). In either case, I'm glad to see you again, Tony! I distinctly remember you reviewing my articles in the past, so it's nice to know that some of the old guard are still around. Kind regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 10:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to go right through it; but someone (new to it and good at copy-editing) should. I concede that the lead is one of the hardest parts to write, but this needs to be a showpiece, doesn't it. (Really interesting topic.) Tony (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Following Tony1's comments, I've recused as coordinator and taken a look at the article. I reworked parts of the lead, which was a little dense in places, and have read to the start of "Empire" without finding too many issues anywhere. There's certainly nothing glaring that I can see. I'm happy to continue looking (but please revert anything I mess up or that you don't think works) but it's a long article and might take a while. However, I really can't see any barriers to promotion at the moment. If Ian is faster than I am, and wanders this way, I've no objection to promotion on prose grounds. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: hello! Thanks for commenting and reviewing the article. I've looked over your recent edits and I find nothing objectionable about your tweaks of the prose. If you want to review the rest of the article, be my guest! However, it was really only the lead section that contained significant parts that I did not personally write. I wrote about 90% of the article's body, owing to the fact that about seven months ago the article was in an abysmal state with very few citations. I'm sure you've already discovered that the body of the article reads quite differently than the lead. Thanks to your efforts, though, the lead section is crisper and much improved. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: hello again! It has been more than a week since we last talked. Is something the matter? Or are you just enjoying a summer vacation at the moment? I'd like to get this review wrapped up relatively soon, seeing how I've had it open since the end of March and have thus far received support from most of the commentators here. If there are anymore outstanding issues to be resolved, I'd like to address them right away, please. Are you still combing through the article? Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 23:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, real life is rather rushed at the moment. I should return to this later today or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: hello. That's okay. If it has taken this long I suppose it doesn't matter if it takes a bit longer. I'm just a bit disillusioned by the whole FA process in general now, because I remember the old days when there was both a lot more commentator activity and a much speedier nomination process. I'm thankful to have received the supporting comments above, though, and I might nominate another article in the near future. Should I put that on hold for autumn, though? Perhaps summer is the worst time to do this, since everyone is busy with vacations, family life, establishing new jobs or getting their academic arrangements in order. --Pericles of AthensTalk 20:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might put this one to bed now... Note though that there appear to be quite a few duplinks in the article; pls check and rationalise as appropriate (you can use this script to highlight -- it boxes the initial instances in green and the subsequent/duplicate instances in red). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2017 [37].

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

Painting about old age and aging by Jan van Eyck dated to c. 1434-36. Its great for several reasons, most of all because of how van der Paele, a significant operator in early 15th century Bruges, allows himself to be depicted without any regard to vanity, at all. Alas, Victoria is retired and will not be active on this FAC, so I'll have to do instead. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images seem to be properly used and in proper format, with the following issues:

Ok. Have added licencing to the first, and replaced the second. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have swapped out this now. Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching you work through. Appreciate the edits and support very much. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

This is an interesting article, nicely illustrated. I bring no special knowledge of the subject to this review, but I'm able to comment on the prose, the logic, and questions related to the Manual of Style. Overall, the article reads well and has very few problems that I can detect. I made a few minor edits, mostly substituting en dashes for hyphens in page ranges. Here are my other thoughts:
General
  • Images need alt text.
  • When I read these alt texts, I try to imagine what they would mean to me if I were blind. Some seem helpful; "Representation of Eve shown on the arm of the throne" would allow me to imagine, at least to a limited extent, what the image is showing. Some, though, would not give me much to go on. For example, "The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, Oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434–36. Groeningemuseum, Bruges" for the lede image doesn't tell me that there are two other people in the painting or how they are dressed or positioned or that the canon is kneeling. The alt text can't be enormously long, but many of these seem too skimpy to me to be helpful. Would you mind having another stab at these with blind readers in mind? Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, with the disclaimer, that the lead and body describe the paintings in detail, and the alt text should prob also adhere to the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can you take another look. Re sources: some of the alt descriptions are from other articles I and a few others had worked on earlier, and are well sourced...if needs be. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. They are much better. I deleted "with an overhanging" from Madonna of Jan Vos because it made no sense to me, and the sentence made sense without it. Please adjust if I misunderstood. I'm now happy to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • The third paragraph seems problematic to me in a couple of ways. The lede is to be a summary and should not contain information that is not mentioned in the main text. Examples: Is the oak frame mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the panel "contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting"? Is Illusionism mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the work is "one of the earliest known sacra conversazione paintings..."? The other problem that I see is that some of the claims in this third paragraph are supported by citations, and usually the lede needs no citations if the claims are repeated and cited in the main text. My suggestion would be to move the direct quotations in this paragraph to appropriate places below and to cite them there and to make sure that other claims such as the one about the oak frame appear there also.
Commission
  • ¶2 "...to question his mortality..." – Perhaps "to reflect upon" rather than "to question"?
  • ¶2 "His bequest allowed him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week." – I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps "In return for his bequest, the church granted him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week meant to intercede with the divine on his behalf"? Some of this becomes more clear to me later in the section, but I think something is needed here. Adding something here might mean tinkering a bit with the stuff lower down to avoid repetition.
  • ¶3 "...is known to have actively sponsored..." – Delete "actively" since "sponsored" contains the action?
Panel
Figures
  • ¶1 "The Virgin sits on an elevated throne situated below..." - Delete "situated"?
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Van Der Elst The Last Flowering of the Middle Ages appears to have a wrong ISBN - when I click on the ISBN link to go to WorldCat, WorldCat shows no entry for that ISBN number. I can find the book through searching the title, but not for a 2005 printing.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have fixed the ref for Van Der Elst. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality and his position as canon. - I'd be tempted to switch to "left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." - gives it more gravitas..and can't be a canon if you are dead...?
do we have any clue as to van der Paele's illness? As a doctor I am curious about these things... oops, missed the footnotes. nevermind.

Otherwise looks all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I've moved the diagnosis from the notes into the article body; it was a good question and I think most people would wonder when reading. I agree also on the reflections of mortality; done. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • The detail pics should be redone from the decent main pic, rather than using old ones from the ropey Yorck Project pic. This doesn't take a moment with croptool.
  • They didnt seem much better when I looked. There is really no decent reproduction line that I can find, most either low rez, or too dark Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 2 paras in the lead.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the images - am intending to redo tonight per your suggestion. Re the lead; see comments above; also on my radar! Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any good reproductions to crop from. This is always an issue with the Groeningemuseum. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, were you still planning to add further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
er, well, yes, I hope so, but please don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing:
  • "both the front piece for an altar and serve as his epitaph". Not just a normal altarpiece, fixed over the altar? Surely not an altar frontal, below it?
    Resolved Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The painting is line with a series of inscriptions which comment of the saint they are positioned, and include van Eyck's signature." huh?
    Hmm. Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St. George stands beside him, presenting the elderly priest to Mary, with his hat raised in respect." It's metal, so "helmet" surely? So called by Brine (first page), Pacht (quoted below) and Snyder (Snyder, James. Northern Renaissance Art, 1985, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN 0136235964).
    Resolved Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are I think using British English, but there is: centered, center, colors (otherwise there is "colour" also).
    Mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The concept of purgatory as an intermediary state before admission to heaven was at its height" - not really; it was becoming standard, and indulgences were reaching their height, no? Masses for the dead were perhaps at a peak (Harbison, 60).
    I removed this in the end. Ceoil (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donatian is described as having "Enjoy[ed] the Glory of God"," - Harbison, 59 has "now enjoys the glory of God" which seems better (and which you use later).
    Have applied Harbison. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "phrases from the Book of Wisdom, comparing Mary to an "unspotted mirror".[7]" - might expand, per Harbison, 59. - Could add later, around note 28.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commission" section - Brine covers this in massive detail, & is the most recent. Some 2nd refs to him would be good.
    Unfortunately I don't have Brine, or a few hundred quid to spare to acquire his book, so have not been able to expand. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got v good long chunks on google books, as you usually do with BRILL. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Eyck abandons the strict symmetry and clear theological basis of the typical Italian sacra conversazione to create a work that stands up to a variety of interpretations" - there hardly was a "typical Italian sacra conversazione" in 1436, indeed Encyc Brit describes as the first sc the Annalena Altarpiece by Fra Angelico, c. 1438–40 (probably wongly, but even so). If by "clear theological basis" you mean not mixing saints and sinners in the same space, better to say so.
    Most of this is gone. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a departure from conventional and contemporary central and northern European memorials" (I changed from "epitaphs" which are strictly text only). Not quite what Brine is saying, I think.
  • "The carved figures on the throne and on the capitals behind include Old and New Testament characters, and may allude to either the Crucifixion – to the left of the Virgin and Child – or the Resurrection – to the right of the two figures." (and picture captions below) And then later: "The carved figures on the upper arms of the throne are representations of Adam and Eve, and those on the legs are prefiguring events from the Life of Christ,[7] as well as Old Testament scenes, including the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac.[6] All too compressed, and rather confused. Adam and Eve are on the uprights of the throne, with Cain and Abel and Samson killing the lion the carvings in the round rising from the arms. There isn't any difficulty in identifying these, surely? Also the other scenes are on the architectural capitals, which is where the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac are. Harbison, 61 & Snyder. The iconography section would be the natural place for this.
  • Section has been reworked, and moved to "iconography" Ceoil (talk)
  • Personally I'm super-dubious about doctors diagnosing figures in old master paintings, though they do love to do it.
    Readers love to read it also; its human interest. Will need to make a call - either heavier disclaimers or banishment to footnotes. Not decided. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reflective of his status as patron saint of the Bruges collegiate" - or more simply, "dedicatee of the cathedral the painting was made for, and of the city of Bruges"? Earlier you refer to "St. Donatian's collegiate church", but it was the cathedral. Better to say so (adding destroyed 1799). I was confused.
  • George "is the donor's name saint" - belongs much earlier I think.
    Now mentioned in lead Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The artist depicts himself standing at his easel," could be earlier than the end of the style section.
    Now moved to the St. George paragraph in description; though considering mentioning it in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provenance - Brine has good detail on the history before the French.
  • In general the layout seems a bit higglety-piggelety, with info coming slightly randomly. Brine and Harbison's conclusions & interpretation are only covered very allusively (they are the sources you use that I have or can see). The whole question of the purpose, and intended placing, of the work deserves a bit more, i think.
Thinking about coherence; this will likely be the last issue addressed as the article evolves from the above points. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Layout restructured, so the facts are not so randomly organised. Ceoil (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks John. It will take around 3 weekends to reconfigure the article, if that timeline is ok with the delegates. I will reply to John's subject matter expert review intermittently, and then ping him here when done. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry it took so long for me to do a proper review. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's no rush here. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, would you mind taking another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this gbooks Brice link work for you? I get about 20 pages on the painting. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got around 3 pages from that range, but one of them very revealing, van der Paele was in a queue to have his painting completed, and that the original, targeted date, was missed. I have added, but interest is really piqued. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of what I can see, about van der Paele buying a second chaplaincy etc, I dont want to get into on this page. Ceoil (talk)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for offering another stunning beautiful painting! I took the liberty to change some image positions, and the fixed sizes, "upright" is more considerate of a reader's preferences.

Lead

  • I'd prefer the explanation going from the things you see at a glance to those covering details, especially mention the Canon sooner. I fear that not every reader will know without a link what a Canon is, or - worse - may think to know. As usually, no other comments to the lead until I read the rest. Just one:
  • Not sure I know what a "sacred space" is.
    The lead was gutted last night, as it had a bunch of info not covered in the body. I agree with your approach; will be redrafting later. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commission

  • "... left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality" - means he was unable to fulfill and unable to reflect, no?
This has been redrafted Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'In return for his bequest, ..." - where does the quote end?
    EEk, wasn't a quote, stray punctuation. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • chaplainy, chaplaincy?
  • "It was installed at the main altar" - what does it mean? As the main altar? Adjacent?
  • Should have been "On" (or in front of). Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panel

  • Yes, there's a link to sacra conversazione, but how about a few words explaining, or at least a translation?
  • Check sentences beginning with "it" and "he" if it's really clear what is meant.
  • If Virgin and Child are linked again, how about other terms from the lead as well. New Testament didn't even appear there. (Common practise, to my knowledge: link in lead and first appearance afterwards)
  • Please decide Romanesque vs. romanesque, and St. Donatian/George/other vs. St Donatian/George/other. (I know the latter as strictly English.)
  • Romanesque is only in lowercase within a quote - looking at the others. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

  • Parrot? (The sources probably have it, but it looks less like a parrot than this one, - also a FAC, btw.)
    I need to follow up more on this - if it is a parrot, its one ugly example :) Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More to follow on the parrot / or not! Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the building's relic seems a bit too complicated, - split?

Inscriptions

  • Explain or link ADONAI?
  • link to biblical source?
  • Not sure how, if you mean to the likes of 7:29. Can you help here? Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about explaining Mary's first, then the left, then the right?

Style and format

  • Can the image with the self-portrait go here, where it's mentioned? (... and the pilasters, not mentioned, elsewhere?
Thank you, for this and many more. Next wish: The Rolin to where it is mentioned, to focus on the Canon (and have his image right). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance

  • "local French-speaking and national Dutch-speaking officials of Bruges" - to my knowledge, the locals speak Dutch, and the nation is divided Dutch and French, both official. I'd say Flemish, not Dutch, but have been corrected several times. This year, I have an image from Bruges on my user page, DYK?
Hmm. I have simplified this a bit. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

  • Can the (last) image of the Canon's head go to where the rendering of his illness is described?

That's it for now, enjoyed it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gerda, glad you like the painting. Will be getting to these very helpful points this evening. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All, done, I think Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very nice, though hardly Maoist art:) Just a few comments.

  • "Mary is positioned at the center of a tight semicircular and space" is semicircular a noun?
  • The ending of the lede seems weak.
  • "An illness around 1431[3] left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." I might substitute "function" for "role", or use some other term. Role doesn't really seem to fit. I might add a "caused" after the first use of "and".
  • "Art historian Barbara Lane speculates that van der Paele may have sought divine protection through prayers and the depiction of intercessors in the painting as relief from his long illness." I'm in doubt what the last part of this sentence means, whether vdP was hoping for a distraction or divine healing.
  • "There was a trend towards the sponsorship of requiem masses, often as part of the terms of a will, a practice that van der Paele, in his official capacity, is known to have sponsored. With this income he endowed the churches with embroidered cloths and metal accessories such as chalices, plates and candlesticks" In the second sentence, assuming the income spoken of is the gifts coming in and vdP had the responsibility of spending it, I might say "In his capacity as canon, van der Paele spent money paid for masses on embroidered cloths for the churches and metal ..." or some such.
  • "Most likely the work was first hung in the church nave as an accompaniment to an altar for Saints Peter and Paul and used for memorial masses for van der Paele and his family." How was the panel used?
  • "The painting contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting[" I might say "depictions" for "examples" unless I'm missing something. I might also switch to "of an Oriental carpet"
  • "Madonna of Jan Vos. Jan van Eyck and Workshop, 1441–43s." (picture caption) what's with the s on the date?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wehwalt, all valid and useful points. I agree with all your observations; working. Ceoil (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All done. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

These articles are one of the reasons I still hang about Wikipedia, though past my sell-by date. My review is limited to prose and presentation, and i have a few minor points. I'm not insisting you accept them all.

Lead
  • "who was then gravely ill" → "who at the time was gravely ill" (otherwise it might be thought that the illness followed the commission, rather than being the reason for it).
  • Why isn't St George linked, while Saint Donatian is?
Commission
  • "...a position which afforded him income from the various parishes under his remit, and allowed him to commission the best painter in the region". Suggest a slight rewording: "a position which afforded him sufficient income from the various parishes under his remit to commission the best painter in the region for his proposed work of art".
  • "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the function and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." Again, a slight modification suggested: "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the functions of his office, and led him to reflect upon his position as canon and on his mortality".
  • "the donation" seems a bit weak; perhaps "der Paele's beneficence" (or "benefaction")
  • "It was donated to the church..." → "He donated it to the church..." (active voice)
Panel
  • Second para: Can anything be done about four "ands" in the second sentence?
  • The word "from" (second word in third para) needs deleting. "After from..." doesn't make sense.
  • "He abandons..." → "Van Eyck abandons..."
  • "and evidence the influence..." → "and evidences the influence..."
  • Link Romanesque architecture
Figures
  • "at the side of her lap" → "at the side of the Virgin's lap"
  • "c. 950". I believe that the use of such abbreviations in WP text is frowned on, so I'd make this "around 950" 9you use this form elsewhere) – and I'd specify AD (There are other instances of "c." in the text}.
Iconography
  • "According to Ward it is odd...": from the wording it's not clear what Ward considers odd – is it the symbols themselves, or their placement? If it's the symbols, shouldn't it be "they are odd"?
Style and format
  • Third para begins: "As with his..." Pronouns should not be used on the first mention of a person in a paragraph. Van Eyck hasn't been named since the first paragraph in this section.
Provenance and attribution
  • "and while it was in the mid-19th century going through a process of rediscovery..." Rather clumsy – suggest: "and while in the mid-19th century it was going through a process of rediscovery..."
  • "Memling" should be identified as Hans Memling, and linked.

A fine article as expected, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, have worked through all of these very helpful and clear suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well done, team, and keep on giving us these great articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moisejp[edit]

Minor comments:

  • Lead: Furs and silks are mentioned, but I couldn't spot mention of them in the main text. (I guess there is mention of St. Donatian's cope, which we find out from the wiki-link would have been silk.)
  • Panel section: "It is a departure from conventional and contemporary central and northern European epitaphs. Van Eyck abandons the strict symmetry and clear theological basis of the typical Italian sacra conversazione to create a work that stands up to a variety of interpretations." Is this meant to fall under ref #14 or possibly ref #11?
  • Style and format: In the sixth paragraph of this section all meant to fall under ref #41 (except for the point about the allusion to early Netherlandish art)? Moisejp (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi Ceoil, is there any reason why the {{harvnb}} template has not been used on the book citations? I always find it useful to click on a citation and it takes me to the book reference being used. Also, we do not generally hardcode the image pixels. In this case you are already using individual pieces from the main image to illustrate the article. I don't think you need to hardcode the pixel for it. Leads to accessibility issues in narrower screens/tablets/phones etc to view them. —IB [ Poke ] 05:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because so many people loath it? There is absolutely no required or preferred citation style, and I suggest you don't push your favourite. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update to delegates Working through the more general, structural issues raised by Johnbod and Moisejp, ie strength of lead, a more coherent structure and groupings of factoids, and a more up to date, comprehensive detailing of the circumstances around the commission. Meeting these will add about another 10kb of text, but its hardly controversial stuff. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Ceoil, Nice to meet you recently (and several others who have commented on this page too!) Excellent article and some very minor nit-picking from me, none of which detracts from my admiration of your work. I know little of the subject matter, so this is a review of the prose only.

Lead
  • You have "center" at the top (and center and centered lower down), but "colour" and "coloured" and a few other British English spellings in the rest of the piece.
  • I'm not sure about the construct "canon; including" – I think a comma would work better than the s-c.
Commission
  • Second paragraph we jump from Mary's importance to van der Paele's duties to where van der Paele kept the panel in three sentences. My problems are threefold:
    • The jumps between subject on each sentence are a bit of a bumpy ride. (To overcome this, van der Paele's duties could be moved to the first paragraph, which is more about the man himself);
    • There is no mention that van Eyck completed the work (or when) – that is referred to in the following paragraph
    • Should this history of van der Paele's holding the panel, demolition of the church, etc, be in the Commissioning section? (Renaming to Commission and history, or similar, may suffice?)
Figures
  • There is a sneaky "doesn't" which should be un-contracted

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, yes meeting of some of the five families of the wiki arts and humanities community was very much fun :) Re your comments above, agree with all, and Johnbod has noted other structural issues similar to your suggestion of re-giging the soon to be renamed "Commission and history" section. Am knee deep in all this, drowning in sources, mud and grit; will ping you to revisit towards the end of the w/end if thats ok. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No rush from me; quality takes time, and I always enjoy reading your articles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update for delegates. Johnbod observed that the facts were presented a bit haphazardly at times; and have completed a restructure. Last remaining issues are tying up the conclusions of art historians (what does it all mean), and some expanding of the commission. Ceoil (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A further reading this morning, post changes, and I've moved to support (my review "disclaimer" here). I made a couple of very minor changes here, but nothing too substantial. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Been a while since the above update so... Ceoil, do you have any more significant tweaks to make? Alternatively, Johnbod, do you have any outstanding concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finished adding; John also made an addition here. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I may add further touches, so I don't think I should !vote. But no remaining concerns on the comments above. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, I think we can put this review to bed then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2017 [38].

Banksia sceptrum[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another banksia (I try to spread these out!), and would be the 30th article to be nominated to the FAC process. I think it is the equal of others. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Amazing sources. Earwig has no issues with it either. The text cited have the information appropriately mentioned in the citation. I support the article to get a shiny star. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the review/support. I am not sure what you mean by the third sentence. Did you do a spot check of sources? (generally a person does not support on source review alone but thanks anyway!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I spot checked a bunch of them. The citations correctly have the information present in the article. Also, the prose is written very well, so a net support. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from JennyOz[edit]

  • tesselated - double L
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and 1–3 cm (3⁄8–1 1⁄8 in) cm wide. - remove 2nd cm
oops! removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and 8–10 cm (3 1⁄4–4 in) cm wide, - remove 2nd cm
oops! removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • measures 0.2 cm (1⁄8 in) long. [2] - space before ref
oops! removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species name sceptrum "sceptre" referring to the prominent flower spikes. - refers?
must have split the sentence and forgotten to convert the participle... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1775 as Banksia J.R.Forst & G.Forst, - missing by?
aah no, that is how the suffix of an authority is written. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex George - wlink?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • muricate - wikt link?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the 2 diff links for style intentional? Ditto for dieback?
not sure how they happened. I guess it's because I have edited this article on and off over the years. Anyway, links updated and streamlined now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC) signing happy support JennyOz (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sterling quality! Now even the prose is flawless! Parcly Taxel 03:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting, though I won't claim to have understood all the technical bits. Just a few items:

Input from neophytes is always good. Regarding this, I find it more natural without the pronoun. but it really bugs everyone else who reads my prose... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change it back. I assumed it was oversight, not style.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not fussed. As I said, everyone else who sees it makes the same change you do, so must be an aussie or me idiosyncracy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is killed by fire and regenerates by seed. The woody follicles open with fire." It strikes me that these two short sentences can profitably be combined.
duly combined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "old spikes bearing follicles" should spikes be spike?
duly singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Known as cotyledons, the first pair of leaves produced by seedlings are obovate and measure 1.4–1.5 cm (1⁄2–5⁄8 in) long by 1.2 cm (1⁄2 in) wide. " consider moving the introductory phrase to after "seedlings".
duly moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their upper leaf margin of the wedge is crinkled." Should their be the?
yup. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swiss botanist Carl Meissner described Banksia sceptrum in 1855, based on a specimen having been collected by James Drummond north of the Hutt River sometime during 1850 or 1851. " I would cut "having been"
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The follicles on the old flower spikes remaining closed until burnt by fire, after which they open and release the seed." Remaining should probably be remain
yup. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If bushfires are too frequent—occurring less than four years apart—they risk eradicating populations of reseeders locally.[17]" consider for the final part "they risk eradicating local populations of reseeders."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicely done. If I'm ever in the area, I shall keep my eyes open for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, but as usual, I found little to do. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Just a couple of comments

  • Tessellated, emarginated and petioles, unlinked and unexplained are asking a lot of the average readers
whoops! linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • similarly, I'm not convinced that Anthesis and obovate are better than "opening" and "egg-shaped"
agree and tweaked on first, second is more complex as ovate and obovate both mean egg-shaped - obovate is sorta "reverse egg-shaped" though I've never seen it called that.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2017 [39].

Grevillea juniperina[edit]

Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a nice plant I grow in my garden. Melburnian have buffed it up over the years. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Grevillea_juniperina.JPG is tagged as lacking description. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
now fixed--Melburnian (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hmlarson[edit]

Here are a few questions/suggestions. Overall, looks very good.

under Taxonomy
  1. First sentence: should it read from the Port Jackson area (the)?
now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Second paragraph: last sentence is unreferenced.
  2. bullet point #4 - could link to Western Sydney (if applicable)
better/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. bullet point #5 - "is a shrub to 2 m (7 ft) found in alluvial soils and riverbanks in the catchments of the Cox's, Kowmung, Wollondilly and Shoalhaven Rivers in the Central and Southern Tablelands, from Tallong to Berrima, as well as Lidsdale to Jenolan State Forest in the southwestern Blue Mountains.[5]" --> Is there a way to split this fragment up?
long sentence split now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
under Cultivation
  1. third sentence: should there be a "the" before the word subspecies?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. sixth bullet point 'H22': should comma be a dash?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 'Poorinda Adorning' and last bullet point: should these include periods at the end?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
images need alt text
  1. added
References
  1. There are three dead links Hmlarson (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
one updated, one is a book page with an isbn so not needed and removed....and the last I am hunting have found. Not a great source but is a bog-standard fact about prickly plants and safe haven for small birds. All the books have snippet views on this only...(am not at home currently). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Nice work! Hmlarson (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from JennyOz[edit]

  • Distribution - mugga ironbark E. sideroxylon - refine wlink to Eucalyptus sideroxylon?
oops, that was an oversight, now fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultivars - Lunar Light ...orange-pink flowers - fullstop JennyOz (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second mention of Coxs River (at G. j. sulphurea) - remove apostrophe?
thx/removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a layman look. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflorescence, perianth, pistil, and habit could maybe be explained.
For the inflorescence, I have "has several individual flowers emerging from a central rounded flower head", perianth would be hard to do succinctly "non-reproductive tube-like structure around sexual parts...? - which is why I have just left bluelink, pistil is similarly complex, but added "growth form" to habit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was later synonymised with G. juniperina, before being recognised as a distinct subspecies." No source, could also give date and author for synonymisarion.
the taxonomy was a bit all over the place until 2000, when Makinson sorted it out. Sometime between 1870 and then the recognition of sulphurea just sort of went away... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are seven subspecies of Grevillea juniperina, six of which have been recognised or described by Bob Makinson of the New South Wales Herbarium in 2000:" Though it is probably given below, could be nice to have a citation at the end of this sentence.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Audrey' – G. juniperina crossed with G. victoriae. Bred in 1957." Needs citation.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not spell out Australian Capital Territory?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "– is a shrub to 2 m (7 ft) that grows" Missing word?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yellow-flowered shrub to 2 m (7 ft) high" Likewise.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It hybridises" Link?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see some broken harv citations.
done Parcly Taxel 03:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Grevillea juniperina.JPG: File information might need some filling in.
now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:GrevjunMorongCk1.JPG: License seems fine for me.
File:Grevilleajuniperinamolonglo.jpg: License seems fine for me.
File:Grevillea Poorinda Queen.jpg: License seems fine for me.
File:Grevillea x semperflorens.jpg: License seems fine for me.
ALT text is simply a recitation of the caption, which isn't helpful. All image uses seem pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
alt rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on images only Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't find any fault with this little gem, after fixing the aforementioned Harv error Parcly Taxel 03:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2017 [40].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinky little torpedo boat that started its life in the Austro-Hungarian Navy and served for nearly 50 years under four different flags. She had a busy World War I in the Adriatic before being transferred to the fledgling Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) after the war. She had a fairly uneventful interwar period, but once Yugoslavia was drawn into World War II with the Axis invasion of that country in April 1941 she was put back into service under the Italian flag. Handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile when the Italians surrendered in 1943, she ended up serving in the post-war communist Yugoslav Navy until 1962. This is the third of this class to go through FAC, so hopefully I've ironed out most of the kinks. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one image, which seems to be correctly used and correctly licensed (assuming that the license info is correct, something I cannot easily check). For the ALT text however, I'd call that a medium-sized ship. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, alt text tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth[edit]

I find no fault with the prose, and I don't see any MOS problems. This reads well. Coming at this as a non-expert, I'm not able to say for sure that it's comprehensive, but it appears to be. I noticed only one thing to ask about, as follows:
Background
  • ¶1 Ganz & Danubius "reduced their price by ten percent". – Ten percent of what? It might be good to add how much SST charged per boat for the first batch, and how much Ganz & Danubius charged per boat for the second batch, if those numbers are known.
Thanks for taking a look, Finetooth. Unfortunately, no source I'm aware of provides the unit price which was being discounted by Ganz & Danubius, just that the discount was the reason for the larger order. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to support, as noted above. You might consider adding, "a competing boatbuilder" after "Ganz & Danubius". That particular sentence was the only one I found a bit puzzling. Finetooth (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Freikorp

Well written and referenced. I see no comprehensiveness issues though I am not a subject matter expert either. An interesting read. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support from auntieruth[edit]

I went through this thoroughly at its A class review. The tweaks there have been useful. Not a subject matter expert, but I found this readable and clear. I've checked it twice with Earwig's tool. No reference conflicts. Prose is good, although some people continue to use "as" when they mean "because" but that's just me being twitchy, I suspect :0. auntieruth (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, Ruth! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Everything is in order here. Everything that needs a citation has one, and all are to encyclopedia-quality sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I get another one started please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2017 [41].

Hooded pitohui[edit]

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another bird, this time from New Guinea, but this one is intriguing as it is the most poisonous bird in the world. Didn't know birds were poisonous? Neither did scientists really till they started looking at this one. It's had a thorough GAN and has plenty of detail about why sticking it in your mouth would be a bad idea. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review - I already looked at the image licensing/sourcing during the GA review, so I can say it all looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley[edit]

Same thing as always. Note to coordinators, if I ever stop reviewing, consider this as a weak support or neutral if all of the comments are answered.

  • In the sentence "Within the oriole family the species is most closely related to the variable pitohui complex, and then the figbirds," two things are unclear. First, it is unclear whether the species complex is variable or whether it is referring to the variable pitohui (pause) complex. Next, it should be made a bit more clear which it is more closely related to.
  • Fixed. I actually cursed the lack of caps, but actually here even that wouldn't work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it more clear what leading means in the sentence "A social bird, it lives in family groups and frequently joins and even leads mixed-species foraging flocks."
  • Presumably leading means it leads? The meaning of leading isn't elaborated in the source text, but surely most people would understand lead.... it isn't technical! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some oxford commas need to be removed, such as in the sentence "The adult has a black upperwing, head, chin, throat and upper breast, and a black tail."

I will do some more later. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused about the sentence "The species was long thought to be a whistler (Pachycephalidae), and related to other types of pitohui, however it is now known to be in the Old World oriole family (Oriolidae)." Could you specify what "other types of pitohui" are, as it is literally in the genus Pitohui. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The call section should probably go into the description section, as it deals strictly with the morphology of the calls. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never understand why though, this isn't a guidebook (although I have done it in the past myself). I'll do it if you insist though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Indy[edit]

  • Should probably mention that it is the most poisonous bird in the world in the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aa77zz[edit]

The article looks well prepared. A few comments:

  • "The species known as pitohuis were long thought to be similar due to being congeneric," - surely this should be the other way around - ie they were considered congeneric because they were similar. (I see this was brought up in the GA review)
  • "with brown to black spots and blotches and faint grey patches over the larger end." This implies that the faint grey patches (and perhaps the black spots and blotches) are only at the larger end. Your cited source HBW alive has "grey patches all over or mainly at larger end". I think it would be worthwhile to cite the primary source for the egg data. Of the five eggs examined only one had most of the markings around the larger end. See:
  • Added, thanks.
  • I trawled through old sources looking for information on breeding. The only small fact I came up with is that the "The natal down is white in colour" see:

- Aa77zz (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Another comment:[reply]

  • "The hooded pitohui is, with the variable pitohui complex, the most toxic species of bird.[14][17]" Is the hooded pitohui significantly more poisonous than the blue-capped ifrit (Ifrita kowaldi)? - Aa77zz (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't noticed that a comparison with this species wasn't mentioned in the text. I have no way of knowing if the ifrit is more poisonous or not, so have changed the wording slightly to reflect that uncertainty. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Interesting stuff, just a few comments follow for your considerationJimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The close resemblance of this species to other unrelated pitohuis—I know this is explained later, but perhaps clearer as The close resemblance of this species to unrelated birds also named as pitohuis?
  • They forage at all levels of the forest, from the forest floor to the canopy,[8] and are reported to forage in small groups, presumably of related birds.[28] The species also regularly joins mixed-species foraging flocks—too much foraging?
  • I get no sense of how much of the toxin is present in, say, the feathers, although it appears to have been measured. Any chance of a typical level in mg/g tissue or whatever is appropriate?
  • It can range a lot, and be almost undetectable in some instances. I could give an upper range, but would that mean much to people? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Okay added some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

containing a range of batrachotoxin compounds in its skin, feathers and tissues - hmm, skin and feathers are tissues....maybe "containing a range of batrachotoxin compounds in its skin, feathers and other tissues"...?
In 1990 scientists preparing the skins of the hooded pitohui for museum collections experienced numbness and burning when handling hooded pitohui. - rephrase only mentioning bird once...?
It was later reported (1992) that .. - why not just say "In 1992 it was reported that "
The nest that has been described was 2 m (6.6 ft) off the ground. - you wouldn't round off to 7 ft?

Otherwise looking good and on-target for the shiney star...(wait, little shrikethrush possibly poisonous as well??!!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2017 [42].

Disneyland Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the steam railroad attraction located in the original Disneyland theme park in Anaheim, California. The concept for the railroad was created by Walt Disney himself, who, besides being known for drawing cartoons, was also an avid railfan. The railroad opened on July 17, 1955, and since then it has become one of the busiest attractions of its kind on the planet with an estimated 6.6 million passengers served every year. I re-wrote the entire article earlier this year and after doing so, I successfully campaigned to get it upgraded to good article status. I feel that it satisfies the criteria to be upgraded further to featured article status, which, of course, will ultimately be decided by the reviewers. I look forward to reading your opinions and working together to make the Disneyland Railroad article a new piece of featured content on Wikipedia. Jackdude101 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness[edit]

This is interesting, well-illustrated, and appears to be comprehensive. I have issues with the lede, as noted below. Most of my questions and suggestions have to do with the prose, which is generally fine but tends a bit too much toward constructions that are either unnecessarily passive or overly complex. Neither of these two sets of prose problems is hard to fix, and I've made several specific suggestions for improvement. I made a dozen or so minor edits as I went; please revert any you think are misguided.
General
  • Images need alt text. Done
  • I need clarification on what you mean by this. Each image has a description on their Wikimedia Commons page. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a full explanation at WP:ALT. I added alt text just now to the Yoakum image so you can see what's involved. I write these by trying to imagine what a blind reader would need to hear from a screen reader that translates the alt text into sound. You will note an alt-text checker in the toolbox in the upper right-hand corner of this review page. If you click on it, you will see the alt text for the Yoakum image. You'll need to write alt text for all the others. The alt text doesn't show up as text on the article page itself but will appear if you roll over an image with your mouse. Hope this clarifies. Good luck writing these; the locomotive descriptions look a bit more difficult than the one I did. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text has been added to every image in the article except the one in the infobox, due to error messages appearing when alt text is added to it. Jackdude101 03:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to squirrel around to figure this one out. Section 5, "Examples", of Template: Infobox has a solution. I've added an alt parameter to the infobox and filled in the alt text space with the word "something". I leave it to you to write the actual alt text to replace "something". Your other alt texts seem fine. Finetooth (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend moving either the map or the image across from it to eliminate the text sandwich in Planning and construction. I'd probably move the image down and leave the map where it is. Done
  • Umm. That eliminates the text sandwich from Planning and construction but creates a new one in Attraction concept origins. Something I didn't think to mention before is that it's better, when possible, to have directional images looking into the page rather than out. Since Locomotive No. 173 is currently running out of the page, I wonder if moving it to where you have now placed the map and moving the map back down into Planning and construction might be a solution. You'd have to position the map so that it is not right across from the passenger cars. It looks to me like there's enough room to do that without making a sandwich of text squeezed between images on the left and right. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved the map/route diagram a tiny bit further down and there is no text sandwich now, at least with the screen dimensions I have. I would like to keep the route diagram as close as possible to the infobox, which is standard practice for similar railroad articles. Jackdude101 18:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • A good deal of what appears in this lede does not seem to appear in the main text. Examples are the length of the route, the current number of trains and their travel times, the info about the A, B, C, and D tickets, and the info about the temporary closure. What I'm reading here is a kind of intro rather than a summary of the main text. To fix this, you need to make sure that the main text includes the info summarized in the lede. After that, the citations embedded in the lede can go away and instead be embedded in the main text. My guess is that most of the data (track length, ticket guidelines, temp closure) belongs in the Ride experience section, which tells us what to expect if we go to Disneyland in 2017 and ride the train. Done
  • ¶2 "such as the conversion of one of its train cars into a parlor car in the mid-1970s, and switching from diesel oil to cleaner-burning biodiesel to fuel its locomotives in the late 2000s." – How about "the switch to" to make the construction parallel to "the conversion of"? Done
  • ¶3 "until the use of all ride tickets were discontinued..." – Trim by four words to "until ride tickets were discontinued"? Done
Attraction concept origins
  • ¶1 "As a young boy, he had a desire to become..." – Tighten by three words to "As a young boy, he wanted to become..."? Done
  • ¶1 "he obtained a job as a news butcher... " – Can "news butcher" be linked to something? I'm not sure of its meaning except in the context of this article.✗ Not done
  • I attempted to find a Wikipedia article to link to this, but no such article exists. The description in that sentence of what Disney did in that job summarizes what a news butcher is. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find one either, nor is there one in Wiktionary. The meaning is pretty clear from context, but if other editors ask this same question, you might consider adding a footnote. Here is an RS for a definition: news butcher. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "Many years later, after co-founding the Walt Disney Company with his older brother Roy O. Disney, he started playing polo, but after receiving several injuries including fractured vertebrae, his doctor made a recommendation that he pursue a calmer recreational activity." – Since the doctor didn't receive the injuries, please recast. Perhaps "Many years later, after co-founding the Walt Disney Company with his older brother Roy O. Disney, he started playing polo. Fractured vertebrae and other injuries led him to abandon the sport on the advice of his doctor, who recommended a calmer recreational activity." Or something like that. Done
  • ¶3 "During this time, Disney proposed that the narrow gauge Crystal Springs & Southwestern Railroad, which the nearby Travel Town Museum in Griffith Park was planning to build, be extended to run through Disneyland; however, due to the Ventura Freeway planned to be constructed between the two sites, and the Burbank City Council rejecting the idea of a new amusement park in their city, Disney had to look elsewhere for a suitable place to build Disneyland and its narrow gauge railroad. – Too complex. Maybe "During this time, Disney proposed that the narrow gauge Crystal Springs & Southwestern Railroad, which the nearby Travel Town Museum in Griffith Park planned to build, be extended to run through Disneyland. However, planned construction of the Ventura Freeway across land between the two sites and rejection by the Burbank City Council of a new amusement park in their city, led Disney to look elsewhere." Or something like that. Done
Planning and construction
  • ¶1 "referred to by Disneyland employees as Retlaw 1" – This is Walter spelled backwards, but it takes a while to figure that out. Perhaps the article should explain this directly in the text or in a note. Done
  • ¶2 "an attempt was made by Walt Disney to purchase a set..." – Flip to active voice and tighten: "Walt Disney tried to buy a set..."? Done
  • ¶2 "the steam locomotives planned to be built for the DRR" – Tighten by three words: "the steam locomotives planned for the DRR"? Done
  • ¶3 "While the train cars and most of the parts for the locomotives were built at Walt Disney Studios, the boilers for the locomotives were built by Dixon Boiler Works and their frames were built by Wilmington Iron Works." – Flip to active voice: "While Walt Disney Studios built the train cars and most of the parts for the locomotives, Dixon Boiler Works built the locomotive boilers, and Wilmington Iron Works built the frames."? Done
  • ¶3 "Both locomotives were designed to run on diesel oil for fuel to generate steam." – Tighten by two words by deleting "for fuel"? Done
  • ¶3 "US$240,000" – No need to specify U.S. dollars in a U.S.-based article. Done
  • ¶4 "to make it appear to be taller" – Trim by two words: "to make it appear taller"? Done
  • ¶5 "The track layout and operations for the DRR were created by railroad-building expert Earl Vilmer..." –Flip to active voice: "Railroad-building expert Earl Vilmer created the track layout and operations for the DRR..."? Maybe end the sentence there, and start a new one with "Broggie hired Vilmer because of his experience building railroads... ". Done
  • ¶5 "On July 17, 1955, Disneyland and the Disneyland Railroad opened, and the day began with Walt Disney pulling the DRR's No. 2 locomotive and its passenger train...". – To avoid the comic idea of Disney physically pulling the train, maybe "driving" rather than "pulling"? Done
Additions in the late 1950s
  • Please eliminate the unnecessary US before "$" instances from this section. Done
  • ¶3 "...with its final cost after being restored totaling over US$37,000." – More succinct would be "at a cost after restoration of more than $37,000." Done
  • ¶5 "The addition of the Grand Canyon Diorama in 1958 prompted changes to the Retlaw 2 freight train pulled by the DRR's No. 1 locomotive, which involved adding side-facing bench seating pointed towards Disneyland and red-and-white striped awnings on all of the cattle cars and gondolas, as well as removing the walls on the cattle cars facing towards the park, allowing for better views of the diorama.[65] That same year, a third gondola with the same modifications as the other gondolas was added, and a fourth gondola with the same attributes was added in 1959, bringing the total number of freight cars in the train set, now referred to by Disneyland employees as Holiday Red, to eight.– Both of these sentences seem to me to be overly complicated. An easy fix for these and others like it is to split them, which is what I would recommend here. The new first sentence could end with "gondola." The second sentence could be "The walls on the cattle cars facing the park were removed to allow better views of the diorama." The third sentence could end with "1959". The fourth sentence could say "This brought the total number of freight cars...". Done
  • ¶5 "...Walt Disney had insisted that there be no seats on them for the purpose of authenticity and to make the passengers feel like cattle riding on an actual cattle train." – Slightly confusing. Perhaps "...Walt Disney, for the purpose of authenticity, had insisted that there be no seats on them; he wanted the passengers to feel like cattle on an actual cattle train." Done
  • ¶6 "Also in 1958..." – No need for "Also." Done
  • ¶7 "After Walt Disney concurred with the decision...". – For more concise prose, delete "with the decision"? Done
  • ¶7 "with its final cost after being restored totaling over US$57,000." – More succinct would be "at a cost after restoration of more than $57,000." Done
Changes from the 1960s to present
  • Trim subhead to "Changes since 1960"? Done
  • ¶1 "Despite the fact that the station was no longer in the Frontierland section...". – Suggestion: "Although" instead of four words, "Despite the fact that". Done
  • ¶2 "In 1996, the five other Retlaw 1 passenger cars were acquired by rail collector Bill Norred." – Flip to active voice; i.e., "In 1996, rail collector Bill Norred acquired the five other Retlaw 1 passenger cars." Done
  • ¶3 "In spring 1966, a five-gondola train set with green-and-white-striped awnings and a five-gondola train set with blue-and-white-striped awnings, referred to by Disneyland employees as Holiday Green and Holiday Blue respectively, were added to the DRR's rolling stock, with both containing side-facing bench seating like the Holiday Red freight train." – Split this too-complicated sentence by ending with "rolling stock. Both had side-facing bench seats like the Holiday Red freight train."? Done
  • ¶6 "After arriving in Disneyland, the Maud L. locomotive, which would later be renamed Ward Kimball like the locomotive for which it was traded, was given a new cab built by Disney and a new boiler built by Hercules Power, which was subcontracted by Superior Boiler Works; however, due to budget issues, the restoration of the locomotive was suspended not long after its arrival and its parts were planned to be placed in long-term storage in late 2003." – Another overly complicated sentence. Suggestion: Split. Done
  • ¶7 "an exceptionally unusual event" – I'd use either "exceptional" or "unusual" but not both. Done
  • ¶7 "The steam train was previously owned by Johnston, who used to run it on his vacation property, which he sold, along with the train, in 1993." –Flip to active voice; i.e., "Johnston, a previous owner of the steam train, used to run it on his vacation property, which he sold, along with the train, in 1993." Done
Ride experience
  • ¶1 "Each train is operated by an engineer and fireman in the locomotive, as well as a conductor in the front and back of the train who supervise the passengers." – "A conductor" doesn't match the plural verb "supervises". For this reason, recast as "An engineer accompanied by a fireman operates the locomotive, while conductors at each end of the train supervise the passengers."? Done
  • ¶2 "can be heard emanating from the old Frontierland Station depot building, which continuously repeats the first two lines..." – The building doesn't repeat anything, but the "sound effect" does. You can fix this by splitting the sentence, which is overly complicated. The first part can end after "building". The second can say "The sound effect continuously repeats the first two lines of Walt Disney's 1955 Disneyland dedication speech." Done
  • ¶6 "no heavy rain is present." – "Falling" rather than "present"? Done
Incidents
  • "During early 2004 at Tomorrowland Station, an explosion in the DRR's No. 3 locomotive took place caused by accumulated diesel fumes in the firebox after its fire suddenly went out." – Maybe "At Tomorrowland Station in early 2004, accumulated diesel fumes in the firebox of DRR's No. 3 locomotive exploded after the fire suddenly went out."? Done
  • This is all I have for now. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your recommendations to the article have been implemented. Let me know what you think. Jackdude101 03:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to support, as noted above. The article is an enjoyable read on a topic more complicated than I would have imagined before reading this. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
ALT text is good everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—no issues with reliability of sources. Turning to formatting, a few points stand out:

  • The footnotes use the CS1 style, while the bibliography uses the CS2 style. They should not be mixed in the same article. The key tell is that CS2 separates elements of the citation by commas, not periods, doesn't capitalize words like "archived" or "retrieved" and omits a terminal period. The CS1 templates do work with the Harvard-style referencing you're using if you include |ref=harv in each one, so you could switch the bibliography over to match that style instead of redoing all of the other footnotes. (You might also want to consider using {{harvp}} instead of {{harvnb}} since it will put the date in parentheses; a simple find all/change all operation in the edit window would flip them all.) Done
  • The footnotes should be updated to correct a formatting error. Take n. 74. The specific article within that newsletter should be cited in quotation marks, the date should be separated out, the name of the newsletter should be in italics, and the publisher should be in roman (plain) text. As it stands, the article title is left out, the date is combined with the newsletter name in quotations marks, and the publisher is in italics. You also have not credited the author of the article either! Done
  • In other footnotes, I see what should be a publisher name in italics; BBC and AOL are companies, not the names of published works, for instance. All of the publishers in the bibliography have been improperly italicized as well. (Traditionally, the place publication is also given for books.) Done
  • Per MOS:CAPS, all caps in titles should be reduced to the same style of capitalization used in article titles. For consistency, you should convert all of your article titles to either Sentence case or Title Case. In the former, only the first word and proper names are capitalized, while in the latter, the first, last and major words are capitalized. Such a minimal change is standard in publishing and advocated by major style guides. Done

It's all just a matter of polishing the formatting before promotion of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just tossing out this idea to see what you think. If we take a page from The Chicago Manual of Style and how it handles footnotes, you could run the full citation on the very first usage in a footnote, and then shorten it on the subsequent ones. So, n. 3 could have the full Brogie citation (with the "p. 131" given) including |ref=harv, and then n. 4 would use the harvnb/harvp template to link back to the full citation in n. 3. Just a thought to allow you to merge the two sections together. Imzadi 1979 → 21:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good, however, I had to fix something. The Orange County Register is the name of a newspaper, and it should be in italics. Ditto Mental Floss and Wired as names of magazines. If a website has a name independent of its publisher, then the website name gets italicized as well. I've fixed those for you, so the citations all look ready to me. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please link "Walt Disney" in the first sentence of the "Attraction concept origins" subsection as that is the first time that you have mentioned him in the body of the article. Done

This is the only thing that I noticed after reading through the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing my comment. I support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 19
54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The citations in the lead have to be removed unless you are commenting controversial information. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. Done
  • The sentence "The table below lists the details of the DRR's train cars." contains a lot of references. Is it possible to reduce them? Done
  • Try to avoid small paragraphs. Done

Other than that, the article looks fine to me. Ping me when you have fixed these issues and I'll support it. Also, if you have free time I would appreciate if you could comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. Regards.

  • @Tintor2: The references are now removed from the lead section. One reference was removed from the "The table below lists the details of the DRR's train cars" sentence (unlike the locomotive data, which have concise tables with all of the relevant data included in multiple sources, the train cars data is a bit scattered with no single reference providing all of it at once). Also, there are no paragraphs with less than two sentences (this was resolved in the prose review above). Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I didn't receive the ping news. Anyways, I'll support this article. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I see no problems with the article, though maybe the incidents section could be prose format rather than list format, otherwise all good. epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from GoneIn60
  • Rolling stock section
"The table below lists the details of..." – I would advise modifying these statements per MOS:IMAGES#References from article text. Although this particular guideline applies to images, it's a general rule of thumb that can apply to any object. Perhaps instead of having this introductory line of text, move it to the table with a title heading such as "Details of the DRR's locomotives". Done
The first image (Wikipedia DRR Steam Engine - IMG 1744.jpg) should probably be reduced in size using the |upright= parameter as defined at MOS:IMGSIZE. Currently, there is a lot of whitespace between the first paragraph and the chart below at certain resolutions. Perhaps add |upright=0.8 to help alleviate some of that unintentional whitespace effect. Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much all I saw as potential issues, and the article overall is well-written and well-referenced. I would add my support once these are addressed. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – following recent changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments[edit]

@FAC coordinators: To recap, the article has completed a review of its prose, images, and sources, and has five confirmed supporters. Unless there is anything outstanding that you can find, it appears that this review is ready to close and the that this article should be upgraded to FA status. Jackdude101 (Talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've run out of time tonight, but I should get to this in my next run through if Ian doesn't get there first. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2017 [43].

Lead[edit]

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of those metals with most effect on humans throughout history. I've deeply enjoyed writing the article myself and from some comments I've got so far I see it must be good to read as well. Comments, positive or negative, are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I'll come back to the intro section later ... for the moment, it looks fine, but I might want to move one or two points up to the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too important but: you use semicolons where commas would be better, in many cases.
  • "lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor from 3000 BC, from 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; and in Athens, Carthage, and Sicily": That's not what "from" means in AmEng. ("were first worked ... in 3000 BC") Also, did it start in 2000 BC in Athens? If not, add "later" or something.
A good one, thank you; "since" seems more natural anyway.
It's hard to say when exactly it began in Athens; the source is only clear on Asia Minor and Iberia. I found a source, however, that claims the trade had extended to Greece by 1600 BC. Added this and updated the reference.
Thank you for your support and for your go-over with this article; it was quite good and made the prose a tad more concise.--R8R (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • My first comment is that the "Main isotopes of lead" table is a complete duplicate of the "Most stable isotopes of lead" so it is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a part of a general discussion of a reform of the element infobox. It seems the isotope table is up to go from the main infobox or there will be a small table in the main infobox and a separate big table, not entirely sure. Now, however, that the tables are still exactly the same, I removed it from the main infobox for the time being.
I object the removal. An infobox is supposed to summarize information from the article (body), so a repetition can and should be expected. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, R8R Gtrs: I formally propose (request) to re-add the isotopes to {{Infobox lead}}. Per WP:INFOBOX, it should summarize the article, and so repeating info that is in the body is by intention. One could propose to change that infobox header into 'Main isotopes' (not 'Most stable'), and adjust the list. To be clear: the table in the article section 'Isotopes' should be there to make the section complete & better by itself, not to replace an infobox function. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is fair enough to be in the article body, but with more information. If any short lived isotopes are natural, they should be there. Other columns could be added such as spin or exact isotopic mass.
  • "Many pseudohalides are known." → "Many lead pseudohalides are known." so that sentence can stand alone.
Yes, done.
  • Plumbane is not an organic compound, even if it is an analog of methane. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The lead analog of the simplest organic compound, methane, is plumbane." Leaving plumbane in the organic section, though, because it is commonly discussed with the organolead compounds.
  • "lead commonly used as the whitener" is not strictly correct as it was a compound. could this be reworded?
I used "in."--R8R (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added one based on the caption in the article.
I am quite confident this is not a subject to copyright, as it is a very simple graph of numeric data. There are licenses for such simple graphs if I recall correctly. Will check in a few hours.
I believe the original image would go under commons:Template:PD-text; from that perspective, I think, licensing must be okay?--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced. The actual text used, where it is placed on the graph, how it links to the graph points, the graph points themselves, the numbers on the scales are all part of a creative choice in making the whole graph. If the text was arranged in a different way, then you could get away with the PD-text for the text, but the graph still has quite a bit more creative elements subject to copyright. You can compare with the alterations in File:Evolution production plomb.svg which I think are OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look now. I am not sure if this is an aesthetical gain, but the alterations must be sufficient?--R8R (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is better. I would also convert 100 to 1 as it is a bit obscure, and 102 could go to 100 as it can fit. Also BP should probably change to a year as BP numbers is changing all the time! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could fit even 1,000,000; but for logarithm-based scales, it's just plain easier to see the trend "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6" than "1--100--10^4--10^6"; when put before such a sequence, first first take half a second to transform that back to "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6". This wouldn't be the case in any other context, but here, I think we should leave the powers as they are. Also, there is a convention about that BP that indicates the numbers will stay as they are (I was surprised, too!).--R8R (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair; done.
    • alt text for the flame test could be a bit more descriptive (for blind people) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded; should be good now.
    • alt text for lead(II) oxide calls it "red powder" but it looks more like cream powder.
Yes, we used to have a different picture there and this must be a remainder. Done.
    • alt text for Chart of the final part of the s-process can be much improved perhaps to say what element transmutes to what. It is not a "greed".
I see I have misunderstood the idea of what should be in alt text; now, I've read WP:ALT and things are clearer to me now. The new alt text must be better.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • for File:Elemental abundances.svg the alt text appears to be for something else.
Why? It is a line chart and the line indeed generally declines to its right?
Sorry, I meant to delete this comment Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • alt text for the Promotional poster should say what is in it. (boy with paint brush, and perhaps all the text in the ad)
I expanded it a bit; please see if it's good now.
    • alt text for Radiography of a swan says it is X-ray like, when in fact it is an X-ray!
Ha ha, you're right! Fixed.
Added.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • number MOS violation in infobox −23.0·10−6 should be −23.0×10−6
Done.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to MOS we should Link the first use of unfamiliar units: eg nΩ·m GPa (I note MPa is linked to Megapascal) neutrons/(cm2·second). I don't think we need to do this in the infobox where the property is linked as that link also covers the unit, but in the article text it should have a link.
I linked "nΩ·m" to ohm and meter; "GPa" to pascal (unit) (removing the MPa link); did not link "neutrons/(cm2·second)" to anything because there is nothing to link to and I think it's fair to say, nothing needs to be linked (it's quite intuitive: "per second per square centimeter").
Actually the first use, now "nanoohm-meters", is not linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly should've been more careful about this one. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They may be made by the addition of trimethyllead or triethyllead to alkenes or alkynes; these precursors may themselves be made from the corresponding lead halides and lithium aluminium hydride at −78 °C." This sentence may be true, but it appears that this is not the way that tetraethyllead was made. Trimethyllead or triethyllead appear to be ions or part of other compounds, not that important that they need a mention in the element article, so I suggest removing the sentence or replacing it. That sentence also makes the following "These compounds" unclear.
Removed, as this seemed most appropriate.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound" should be a standalone sentence as it is not related to its oxidising properties. Perhaps it should be moved up to the other bits on tetraethyllead.
It is related: I thought the current wording "The oxidizing nature of many organolead compounds is usefully exploited: lead tetraacetate is an important laboratory reagent for oxidation in organic chemistry;[80] tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound.[81]" hints at that very well. Put an "and" instead of the semicolon to clarify it further.
  • "Retrieved 2017-01-30" and "Retrieved 2017-04-12" dates in wrong format
Fixed.
  • What symbol should be used in formulae to link molecules together? Is it "•" or "·". Personally I like "•" as it is easier to see. But whatever is used it should be consistent.
Used the former for the same reason.
Now I see there is inconsistent use of "•" or "·" for multiplication in units as well.
It didn't occur to me I'd also have to look in the infobox. I've turned to the smaller dot, which is in the infobox right now, because maybe some articles have complied with it as well, in which case I don't want to ruin it.--R8R (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pb5Sb4S11" is messed up, in one place it appears to have spaces, and another new-lines. The Chem template is trashing it somehow by adding some sort of separator before each number. It is important to not insert separators for the case that the text is copied and used elsewhere or a "find" is used to look for something on the page. Either the Chem template can be fixed, or it should not be used in featured articles.
I do not see spaces added in my desktop nor in mobile view. But I do see "Pb 5Sb 4S 11" when copy/pasting (and I removed newlines here). That is by {{Chem}} indeed. Best is to avoid {{Chem}}. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Converted all formulas to the plain sup-sub style.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "PbCO3" it inserts a space before the 3. (same template:Chem problem)
Same.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence "The fungus Aspergillus versicolor is effective at removing lead ions.[252] Several bacteria have been researched for their ability to reduce lead, including the sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum, both of which are highly effective in aqueous solutions." "reduce" is used in two different senses, chemical reduction, and making the amount smaller. We should probably ahve two different terms so that people do not think that lead-II is converting to elemental lead-0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A great catch; done.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need a Farenheit conversion in "tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C (210 °F)" as other temperatures for reactions are not converted from °C.
Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had my doubts about "bis(disyl)plumbylene" being correct, so I checked the reference and the name is not there. Searching google scholar does not find it, and on Google it is mostly mirrors of this page. So this name need to be fixed or dropped. It probably should have "bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl" in the name perhaps bis(bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl)plumbylene (or lead)
I'll prefer dropping because such long formulas need to be mentally reconstructed back into their formulas anyway.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "forty-three lead isotopes" normally the number wold be written using digits: 43 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unit-cell size is missing (from infobox). This only needs one number since it is a cubic structure.
  • A question about other registries: In chemical articles we include chemspider and pubchem and possible some other registry numbers in the infobox, not just cas. Should this happen for elements too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll contact the WikiProject to work out a project-wide solution.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These both questions cover essentially all of the elements (both would require alternations to {{infobox element}}). Can we be satisfied for the purposes of this standalone review with the fact that the discussion on the matter has been initiated?--R8R (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two different punctuations in "lead-acid" and "lead–acid". The former used in a reference and the latter in text. I suspect that nothing has to change though.
There was one hyphen occurrence---in a quote---so I checked there is actually a hyphen in the original and left it as was.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "profile" as used in Bairagi reference: Does it really use the typographic ligature "fi" instead of "fi"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't; strange. Anyway, I removed the ligature.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]

Now starting review of references.

  • My first comment is that I really do not like the two level references. I would much prefer to see one click from the text footnote to the full reference. The only place for double barreled referencing is where you have different requirements for page numbers from the same reference. In any case I will review the end references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When this new referencing system was being first introduced to the article, I was uneasy, too. What convinced me is that references look nicer and actually are available in one click (and one hover). I find that okay because when I want to know something about a ref, this is exactly what I do with it in general.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You must have enable some extension for hover to work like that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it on my smartphone. Yes, you have to suffer two taps.
I decided to check if other articles can do with just one, and I looked for a random wikilink to click and check. The link I clicked was Vespasian from one of our notes. The system there is even more complicated but, I believe, still acceptable. So I think we can agree that the current system is acceptable, too? Moreover, this system has happened to grow on me. I do think it has the good looks, which is a reason for a referencing style in first place.
From what I remember, fluorine passed an FAC in 2014 with a similar referencing style.--R8R (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many reference entries could include more complete names of authors, but mostly all we see is initials. Authors are more likely to be identified properly when using known first name also. THis is useful for when we wikilink to the articles on the authors.
As far as I can see, this is something sort of a personal liking thing. I generally adopted the "Last, F." system because I wanted to give it a try and because I knew it wouldn't hurt me back if I do. Many universities use this in their referencing styles.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • eg "The memory of the women's white faces: Japaneseness and the ideal image of women" missing first1= Mikiko
  • We should have authorlink1 etc for notable authors. If we have no notable authors for all the references listed then I wonder have we picked the best ones?
Good call. Will add some.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the first two columns of the reference list. Added a few links. The third column and journals to be done.--R8R (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First mention of journals should also have a link to the article on Wikipedia. If this is done then ISSN is not needed for the well known journals.
I generally believe ISSN is not needed for any reference. This is well illustrated by how {{cite journal}} this article heavily relies on doesn't list the |issn= parameter in any of the mentioned layouts in "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format."
As for journals: good one, too, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Journals, as well as publishers, linked.--R8R (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adsorption profile of lead on Aspergillus versicolor: A mechanistic probing" is a primary reference. Perhaps a secondary is "International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology ISSN 2278-5299 Volume 3, Issue 1: Page No.24-42 ,January-February 2014" Biosorption for metal ions removal from aqueous solutions: a review of recent studies NT Abdel-Ghani, GA El-Chaghaby - Int J Latest Res Sci Technol, 2014 - (Is that journal reputable?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time wondering if this was the case and then decided I'd go for a different citation with similar content published by ScholarlyEditions. I think this must be good.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentioning of the quasicrystalline lead with two references to Sharma's writings may be undue. They are both primary references, and I cannot see any reviews or textbooks that mention this. A high level article like this should probably not include details like this that are not found in secondary or tertiary references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Removed.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be re-instated as a note? Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My initial response to a comment suggesting we should delete some information was just that: maybe we could put it in a note. However, I looked this through and the conditions under which it was discovered and it really seems such a minor detail. I am beginning to rethink the need to state that lead could be essential for pigs in trace amounts, because actually, this is super minor, too. A mention by itself gives a lot of credit, probably more than this fact is worth.
I'll take some time to think about it, though; but for now, I think we shouldn't.--R8R (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could go into some other article (if it exists) such as lead allotropes, solid lead or lead monolyer but not in a high level article like this one. There would be much more content that could be in this article, say on compounds, use, mining, minerals, but we don't have it here as it is too detailed, and can go into other articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was precisely my line of thinking. I think I agree here. Also, will hide the bioessential stuff.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The line about a reported allotrope of lead was added in response to a question by User:Nergaal on wether there were any such allotropes, noting the many allotropes of carbon, silicon, germanium and tin. Allotrope formation is a distinctive phenomenon in this part of the periodic table, so it was a fair enough question. In all other relevant element articles we mention the existence of allotropes so it'd seem reasonable to do so here. The supporting references are primary so it doesn't warrant more than an 'It was reported in…' note. Of course, with things like compounds, use, mining, minerals, one could go into more and more detail but in this case there is only one allotrope and making a brief mention of it is the kind of high caliber information I hope to see in Wikipedia articles, especially at the FAC level. I'll go ahead and add such a note. I would've done so myself earlier but wasn't in a position to be able to do so. Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Graeme, thank you for your review. It was good as it did tighten the quality. (Again, I am sorry to say this days after the review itself. Please pardon my poor manners.)

Now, is there a question to which you believe you didn't get a satisfying response or is there anything you'd want to add?--R8R (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have not yet finished my reference review. So I am adding plenty to the delay myself! The idea is to determine if the best references have been used. Whether there is undue references used to support unimportant facts. Sometimes we get people keen to promote their own work dropping in a sentence and a reference to themselves. Though I have not seen this on the lead article yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of nutrition, an old textbook I have says a lead deficiency sign found in rats is hyperchromic microcytic anemia, and disturbed iron metabolism, but considers it not essential in humans. It covers lead far more as a toxic unwanted element in another chapter.[1]
  1. ^ Young, edited by Maurice E. Shils, Vernon R. (1988). Modern nutrition in health and disease (7th. ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. p. 279,694. ISBN 0812109848. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Sure. I think the article must be good in this respect, but you're very welcome to check this.
As for nutrition, the purpose why we even used to have that info was that importance in mammals may mean importance in humans. By itself, this is a biology-specific fact, very much so. Since we agreed the human info is of little relevance, then so is the animal info. We don't cover animals; nor because this is impossible or too difficult, but because this is unrelatable information for nearly all people and this adds little to the human information, which far nore relatable.--R8R (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More reference review / source check[edit]
A[edit]
  • Acton: Book, seems to have little editorial input and is a collection of research statements, fact verified 1 use
  • Alsfasser: book, should be OK, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Amstock: book, exists, 1 use, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Anderson: secondary but old from respected magazine, fact confirmed, 1 use
  • Ashikari, journal article, is missing info, it actually has a first1=Mikiko issue=1; fact and quote confirmed. (on page=65)
    Done. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ×Audsley, G. A. Book, exists 1 use; However it contradicts the "fact" in the article; The book says that pipes should be mostly tin, with a smaller proportion of lead, Any use over 25% lead requires an "elastic conscience". also this book says that the material (or how much lead) does not affect the tone. What is affected is the durability, and appearance of the pipes.
I never liked the organ material in the first place. Perhaps now is a great chance to remove it after all.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed reading the reference though. Perhaps the article can say "Organ pipes are often made from a lead alloy." How about that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why not. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Australian Mining History Association, fact confirmed; better sources may be available in books; we don't actually know who wrote the web site content, or where they got information from. 1 use
I'll add this source instead: [1]. Here's what I could extract from the Google Books snippet view: "MINES AND QUARRIES. CHAPTER VII. Glen Osmond was brought into prominent notice by its silver-lead mines and its building-stone quarries. Silver-Lead Mines. It is generally accepted that Glen Osmond has the oldest mines in Australia"--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B[edit]
  • ×Bairagi doi and pmid correct; species name should be italic. Appears to have 0 uses, so should not be included, and no facts to check;
Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baird, book, appears to exist, unable to confirm content facts
  • →Bastasch, online newspaper; missing full date, which is important: 9 April 2015; fact confirmed. 1 use in a note
Why is full date important? Is it not better now that all references provide the same amount of data information?--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think I'll rather move to this ref: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition -- and avoid the question.--R8R (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The full date is important because 1 its a newspaper and you may want to find the print edition, and 2, it is connected to the article fact about when it happened.
The first argument makes sense to me. Anyway, as I said, I'll move to the new .gov source. This must be OK, right?--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That ca.gov ref would be OK. For dates in references they should reflect how often the thing is published. For books just a year will do, most journals should have a month, but weekly or daily publications should have a full date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point that as I see you raise is unambiguity. Makes perfect sense to me and I'll follow. I'll note, though, that this is not really an issue for most scientific journals. They usually also have several issues per year or something. Rarely is the month ever an essential part of the info. That noted, I'll have your comment in mind anytime from now on.
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Beard: book; fact confirmed; M. E Beard appears to be the first editor. Second editor S. D. Allen Iske. It looks as if the chapter called "Imputing Lead Sources from Blood Lead Isotope Ratios" was written by Michael B. Rabinowitz.
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Becker primary research article; facts confirmed that it has oxidation state 3; Perhaps our article should mention this is called a "plumbyl radical". I am looking for a review article that covers this... It looks like a book chapter covers this: 10.1002/9780470666975.ch10 title=Stable Radicals: Fundamentals and Applied Aspects of Odd-Electron Compounds publisher=Wiley editor=Robin B. Hicks Year=2010 isbn=978-0-470-77083-2 Pages=381-406. authors=Konu, Jari, and Tristram Chivers. chapter="Stable Radicals of the Heavy p‐Block Elements." This radical is covered on page 391-2 of that. You can keep the discovery primary paper, but it is also good to include a secondary source to prove it is genuine.
Yes, the book covers this; will add.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??Beeman missing doi=10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7 retrieved and url inapprorpiate; primary research/synthesis. 1 use; Facts only partially confirmed, though all significant figures were removed perhaps our article should say 2.3×1025 to 3.4×10189 years ; each isotope has a wide range, and our article assumes the upper bound years with figures truncated to "1".
I don't understand; what's wrong with the url? As for ranges: the article assumes the lower bound of Pb-204 and the upper bound for Pb-207, both truncated to 1. It seems like an appropriate way to make these numbers a little less precise with the purpose of not fixing the reader's attention on these for too long for a secondary-importance fact that it is.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not needed as doi goes to the exact same page. A url is useful if you can get to read the article somewhere else, such as supplied by the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable enough. Will remove.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ×Berdanier reference does not appear to be used, the linked google books page does not appear to mention lead; so it should be dropped.
Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Bergeson one use; This reference is written by a person who appears to be an expert on the legal aspects, and not one the science and health side of things. I would suggest using an alternative medrs quality reference.
    Used the OSHA ref. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Bisel, chapter in book reference confirms facts, (and also some others nearby in the text) looks good. 1 use I used this google book URL https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=3xfjyTqqR7IC&q=459#v=snippet&q=459&f=false but it needs transmutation for use here.
Added transformed url.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Bisson, 3 uses; all facts confirmed (although p85 calls this Benue Rift instead of Benue Trough). suitable ref.
There is no difference. It doesn't matter.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Blakemore, book ref 1 use, superconductivity fact confirmed, but information about resistivity and comparison to other metals is not there - needs another reference.
Will add a reference to the CRC Handbook here.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Boltwood, B. B. 1 use. Primary reference. This is basically the person who first suggested that uranium and thorium decay to lead and helium. The reference suggests using the ratio of U to Pb as a dating method. It says nothing about the lead-lead dating or isotopes, so that previous sentence also needs a reference. A secondary or book reference should back this very old reference up with modern figures.
Replaced with a new reference: Levin 2009.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Bremholm 1 use primary research reference; The reference confirms nothing about PbS2 being a semiconductor, we need another reference.
This semicondictivity is not very useful since these are only stable at high pressures. Will change the claim to this per 1 and Bremholm.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Burleson, book ref with one use, confirms lead use as flux for glazing. Looks OK. Could add &pg=23 to the url.
I am not particularly keen on adding &pg=23. We don't do this when we have multiple references to a source and uniformity is nice, I'd say.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the citation style used here sort of implies not having these links to exact pages. It seems more logically consistent this way.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bremner, 1 use, book reference, fact confirmed, looks fine
  • ?Burbidge, 3 uses, review reference. This is over 100 pages long, so specifying the actual page(s) used would be good. s-process p608-610, r-process also confirmed around page 641. facts confirmed.
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C[edit]
  • de Callataÿ, review article, 1 use, fact confirmed
  • ?Casciani, reliable news source, 1 use, confirms statement, but statement in article is unclear " subsequent decreases in crime levels" was not due to exposure, but due to removal of lead.
Reworded; OK now?--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for making you wait for so long. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away from Wiki for a few days (one week at most, most probably less) and then I believe I should be able to return and edit at full strength and I will fix all issues you raise that are worth fixing. If waiting for me is what keeps you from posting more reviews, please don't let it be the reason. I'll be back very soon.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
R8R Gtrs: I am not actually waiting for you, I have been a bit busy and doing other things in my life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Charles, primary research article, mentions fact in introduction, 1 use confirmed; a review or book reference would be better.
Replaced w/ a book.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Chia, primary research reference, 1 use, fact confirmed, although most of what was prepared was a Pb(I) dimer. A review would be better.
This one is recent. However, I've found a book replacement, which is three months old now.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Christensen book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed, could add page number 867 to url.
    Done already. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copper Development Association, web site, 1 use, facts confirmed, book may be better
  • Cotnoir book reference, should add pg=35 to url, fact mostly confirmed. But alchemical symbol is not on this page. So another reference is needed for 🜪
Symbol ref added.--R8R (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cox The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance and distribution (should have capital D) book reference with one use in a note, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
Fixed that "D".--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D[edit]
  • Dart Book reference, page links to a section on lead, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
  • ?Davidson book reference, uses 87a confirms only part, fails to mention Goldschmidt classification; native occurrence is mentioned on page 5 (so should be page 4 and 5); 87b confirmed; 87c partially confirmed, should also mention copper as an impurity; 158a confirmed, 158b confirmed; 159a, 159b, 159c, 159d confirmed; 162 also needs page 12 to confirm that sulfate is in the sinter; 165 confirmed; 168 - not all impurities end up in solution, as there is also anode slime which accumulates copper, arsenic, antimony, silver, gold, bismuth, germanium. The reference is good for the use given.
Will work on Goldschmidt; mentioned copper; added pages 5 and 12; mentioned that most impurities remain in the solution.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a reference for Goldschmidt.--R8R (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?DeKock book source. appears not to confirm content it is cited for. But I cannot be sure.
This one is disappointingly difficult to find a good citation for. I'll hide the fact for now in a hope that one day, a good source will be found.--R8R (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may yet be more complicated. Tl and Bi are next to Pb on the table and have unpaired electrons, and yet they are still diamagnetic. Clearly something odd is going on down here with the 6p elements, but I have not found a good explanation as to why. This makes me sispect that the true explanation would probably constitute a very large excursion from the text if it were to be found. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Delile primary research article, facts confirmed, but review or book reference would be better. I am unconvinced that we need an exact quote: "unlikely to have been truly harmful".
The quote in question seems to be okay either in or out. We say, "According to archaeological research," and a quote seems appropriate. I won't insist on having it, though.--R8R (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rare topic, by the way. On my look, I didn't find any review of this. I'm not too surprised and that's why we use a quote and say "according to archaeological research," so that it's clear the matter is not settled yet.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deltares government report, 1 use, fact confirmed, OK
  • Duda, book ref, 1 use, facts confirmed
E[edit]
  • Emsley, J. book source, isbn appears to be for a 2001 edition. The page 280 does not include the information. ref 208 and 210 appear to be covered on page 226. No edition is specified in reference so what was consulted? I am looking at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yhi5X7OwuGkC
No edition has been specified because I believe the year covers that well. I've corrected the isbn.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ×Ensafi - primary research article reference with one use; cited fact (Pb2+ is colourless; mostly insoluble) is not confirmed by this article; I suggest that you use a text book. (the first one I checked does not say).
Suggestion taken; using a book now.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eschnauer; 1 use, book source; citation with quote confirmed.
  • Evans - journal article, one use, facts confirmed.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F[edit]
  • →Finger - book reference, should add page to url, one use, fact confirmed.
I don't think we should. Not in general, but in this current citation style. We treat the information on where in the source the info is found and about the source itself separately. Thus, since the ref info does not include the page info, we shouldn't add it to the url, either.--R8R (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiorini - magazine ref, 1 use, partly confirms the facts. OK
  • →Frankenburg book ref, should add page number to url, fact confirmed.
    Done already. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Frebel book ref, should add page number to url, fact confirmed.
    Done already. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freeman, primary research article, fact confirmed, review article would be superior.
  • Funke, review article, fact confirmed.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G[edit]
  • Gale - book ref; 1 use; facts confirmed
  • Gilfillan - journal article, 1 use, confirmed.
  • Gill - book page, I cannot see this so only AGF.
  • →Graedel - web pdf report page, fact confirmed on page 17 (could add page number)
    Page number added. Parcly Taxel 04:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    great!
  • Grandjean one use, review article, although our article says stoneware, reference says lead glaze, and its reference (Klein) says earthenware, all meaning slightly different things.
  • Greene - web site, 1 use, facts confirmed.
  • Greenwood 15 uses! Checking the google book linked, wrong page specified for ref#82 should be paGE 404 ie should be the same as ref77. the 3 citations on ref77 check OK, ref74 OK, ref71 needs page 384-386 to cover facts. ref 64 has wrong page number, should be 381, ref 60 confirmed, ref59 confirmed, ref55 confirmed, 51b and c confirmed, 51a not on the page given.
Corrected.--R8R (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grout - one use, reliable web page. fact confirmed.
  • Guberman, one use, reliable government report. facts confirmed.
  • Gulbinska, book, fact confirmed
  • Guruswamy one use, unable to check this source; however fact is easily confirmed on random web sites.
    Fixed (see Lansdown). Parcly Taxel 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H[edit]
  • Hadlington - book reference 1 use, fact confirmed.
  • Harbison - reliable book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed.
  • Hauser - reliable book/review reference. facts confirmed, can be read at google books https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-4OtDgAAQBAJ
  • Hernberg - reliable book reference, 1 use, facts confirmed
  • ×A History of Cosmetics from Ancient Times - independent web site, facts partly confirmed. "Venetian ceruse, was extensively used in cosmetics by Western European aristocracy as whitened faces were regarded as a sign of modesty" is not confirmed by this reference.
    This was replaced by two reliable references by R8R. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hodge - secondary reference from the point made, which is confirmed.
  • Hong - four uses, journal article, facts derived from background information supported by the study, facts confirmed.
  • How does lead absorb radiation like x-rays and gamma rays? - This is an answer off the top of Chris Smith's head, which is not quite 100%. I enjoy Chris Smith and his answers to questions, but they may not be totally right. "Lead atoms are densely packed" is misleading, as atom packing will be higher for many other elements due to their having smaller atoms. But the bit about electron density appears to be correct. Perhaps a better source in a book is available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with a page from the Thornton et al. ref. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunt, 1 use, book ref, mostly confirmed, except "Most are less ionic than the compounds of other metals and therefore .. insoluble" (It confirms the insoluble but does not give a reason) Also I see this on page 215 of the google books 2014 edition, which should be the one, s its linked).
    Fixed. Parcly Taxel 07:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--end of H-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sandbh[edit]

  • Support on the grounds that it appears to meet, subject to Graeme's astute comments being addressed, all the FA criteria. I've been a significant contributor since being asked by the nominator for help with copy-editing. I particularly enjoyed the History section.
  • Re the duplication of the lead "Main isotopes of lead" table as the "Most stable isotopes of lead" table in the main body of the article, this duplication is likely a good thing given Wikipedia articles are commonly viewed on mobile devices. Sandbh (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At information level: a main infobox is supposed to summarize content of the article body, so some repetition of isotopes is to be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me so long to respond; thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DePiep[edit]

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [44] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added it is that it means that the values we list in the infobox for abundances, a:s well as the atomic weight itself, may vary significantly outside the obvious range of variation. I agree that it was too long, but I think R8R has accomplished a skilful contraction that gets t;Isotopes in he main point here (a caveat lector sign, if you will!). Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It now says: "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". True of course, and also superfluous (because Ar already says so; why not added there btw?), generic not Pb-specific (for example, 12 Ar=[interval] elements are much heavier involved into this; missing the word 'Earth'), and not infobox-level: details of the multi-layered concept of standard atomic weight itself, not the element (you'd always have to look this up before it has meaning). Let the section do this job. -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it varies this much is absolutely Pb-specific. The variation is small enough that it hasn't yet been changed to an interval, but large enough that you will very easily find samples outside the range given spanning almost the entire gamut from 204 to 208. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By now, the all-important 'variance of abundance' is well-described elsewhere. End of issue, all fine. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Section Isotopes

Disclosure: recently I've tried to clarify "standard atomic weight" (created the article) e.g. being different from relative atomic mass and having derived values like "conventional value". It occurs to me that these subtleties are not easily recognised or distinguished even by scolars/editors, resulting in imprecise term usage in wikis (including wikidata). However, I understand that I should not push this perfection too far. For now & here, I ask awareness of the issue. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, acknowledged.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • About. Existing text: "(For this reason, the atomic weight of lead is given to only one decimal place.)[36]". While factually correct, I'd like to have this a more pleasant reading. Points:
Removing the () brackets would not disrupt anything IMO, so can be done (no need to make it a sidenote, atomic weight is quite relevant). If it is bracketed, it could be removed. If unbracketed, include it in text flow.
I like these parentheses. They are sort of editorial. I used to try to avoid parentheses in texts whenever possible but I don't anymore. This is a good tool when used right. Here, they smooth the transition from the standard atomic mass talk to the relative abundances change talk. Having them costs nothing, really.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They have a reading effect, they make a sidenote. Then either it should be a crisp sidenote or a more complete side topic. IMO now it is neither. Always, main effort should be to do without them. If impossible, think & re-read why that is not possible: there is an editorial (write/read) issue in there. With my notes below, pls try to find an improvement for eadability. How does it feel when read aloud? -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)+[reply]
Sorry, I cannot clarify enough my points about brackets & reading, too subtle English language. I should leave it then. Maybe John could take a look. For me, it's out of my English lang league. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost the parentheses.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, out. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, please do not use "standard atomic mass" (ouch) when I'm near ;-) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer writing "standard atomic weight" for "atomic weight" (equally correct, but 'atomic weight' is easily confusing, while adding the word 'standard' is removing all confusion easily). Also to check: use of short 'atomic weight' elsewhere, and adequate linking.
OK, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected in Isotopes; the occurrence in Bulk is vague and we don't need to refer to the standard.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The sentence leaves much to be researched (homework), in how the abundances make the atomic weight. Could we have a more direct explanation, for example: "For this reason, the relative atomic mass Ar [not s.a.w.! DP] is x in normal samples and y in thorium ores", "... this variation shows as a large uncertainty in the standard atomic weight: 207.2±0.1".
I need another go to think on this one.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may know I love making texts accessible. Accessibility is my top priority. I've tried a few times to improve it but I honestly don't see what I could improve. Pretty clear, isn't it? Anyone should be able to handle it. Bonus fact: if a reader has to think something for themselves and then solves it, they're proud of themselves and keep going on, that's what happens often. The obstacle here is not too high; anyone should be able to do it.
Yet if something is actually unclear, please could you specify what it is?--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I can not specify. My command of English—science—explain is too low, so I drop this. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The source now for this remarkable abundance is: [36] Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 368. I have no access. If G&E adds details (such as various abundance calculations), it's fine. When it mentions just the value, maybe the source be {{CIAAW2016}} or [45], which is by the defining institute IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked both G&E and CIAAW2016. G&E supports the claim in its entirety; CIAAW does not. No changes are to be made.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable thinking. Will check.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... CIAAW does not" you say: weird. Alas, I drop it. (Sequence quest would be : what CIAAW report does G&E 1998 use, etc.). Done. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section's isotopes table ({{Infobox lead isotopes}}) could/should contain all isotopes mentioned in the text. If so, missing are: lead-209, -111, -112, -114 (all with natural traces).
This is possible. Leaning yes here.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added all without the decay energies (don't immediately know where to get them and I think we'll get rid of them very soon anyway because we don't use them in the text).--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decay energies are in the grand table Isotopes_of_lead#List_of_isotopes. For this isotopes infobox, removal of energy column is not discussed (so will stay). -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is a full infobox, hired from isotopes of lead. If this would limit good usage here by contradicting requirements between the two articles, a dedicated table could be made for this section. IOW, using that external infobox should not require compromises when writing a FA-level section in article lead. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isotopes in the top infobox
  • The footnote now says "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". That better be like "Isotopic abundances [do] vary significantly".
I disagree here: if they do, then how? We may go for something like "Isotopic abundances vary significantly by sample." Is it OK with you?
OK, even better. Wanted to say: no need for 'may vary': they 'do' vary. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which isotopes in main infobox: The infobox should give a condensed resume of the article, not a copy. For this, I propose to remove isotope lead-202 from this infobox. As its mentioning shows in section Isotopes, it is an incidental fact not major for this element. (Earlier discussion here).
For the same reason, I'd ask reconsidering listing lead-205 and lead-210, though these could have better reasons to stay in there. I'd claim that having a long half-life alone is not enough (as a characteristic for Pb).
I see your point. Though if we remove all unstable isotopes, then there is no need for a table, as it is equally represented with a short one-line list of stable isotopes. Could we do it?--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the outcome (four stable isotopes only), the infobox should cover it. No reason to feel restricted by this. Not the other way around. (Ask at WT:ELEM for table adjustment, see who responds). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't feel restricted. I am ready to leave only four but we need to reorganize this part of the infobox in that case; otherwise the space will be wasted irrationally. Personally, that's what I'd want to do: only leave primordial isotopes in the infobox, and list only mass numbers and abundances.
If it is something that should be agreed on at WT:ELEM, then here is not the right to raise the issue in the first place.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple: the main infobox should only list the main, characteristic, defining, calling isotopes. Then, if the result looks weird, we can change the look (but not the list). That look is maintained element-wide, not ad-hoc for lead. So, if the list only has 4 stable isotopes justified, its OK for this FA. And maybe we should improve the infobox — elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: until some weeks ago, this infobox had headertext "Most stable isotopes of ...", today "Main isotopes of ...". This change relieves the main infobox of the obligation to give a complete list by half-life. Today, we can restrain ourselves to list only the important ones, preferably those as described in the article section Isotopes. My opinion is to be very restrictive here while being as complete as FA-needed in the section. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for standard atomic weight

Is reference [1], for the standard atomic weight of 207.2(1), good enough? The source could be either the 2013 technical report (as it is now, see {{CIAAW2016}}, p. 273/table 1), or the straight webpage. IUPAC should be mentioned? Maybe someone more familiar with referencing could take a look at this. BTW, the source is coded in two infobox templates so a synchronising is needed. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's quite good.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support leaving only the stable isotopes in the Pb main infobox, since they are all much more important than any of the radioisotopes. (Removing some of them but not others doesn't sit well with me, but removing them all is fine).

For general elements, I'm not sure "primordial only" is the best thing, because 35 elements have no primordial isotopes at all. Also, I would want the decay modes at least for the unstable ones: the shortest I could stomach for potassium is "39K, 40K (β−, β+, ε), 41K", and I would like to see the long half-life too because it is assuredly important enough for the text. So I'd say the primordials make it, plus a few case-by-case exceptions of extreme importance (for example, T, 7Be, 10Be, 14C, 18F, 36Cl). But this is off-topic here and we can discuss it elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other
  • The article now uses both BC and BCE. Should be single. In a science article, I'd prefer the more neutral BCE, but I don't know if there is a freedom. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Politely pinging R8R Grts: this question might have been missed so far. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not reacting too fast. Good one, done.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from John[edit]

It's looking a lot better than last time around. I still hate the unnecessary duplicated pronunciation guide in the infobox. Looks stupid.

Helpful to me. Visually, shall we put them together in one line? -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might help, good idea. --John (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (punctuation between still ok?) OK? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of chemistry queries:

  • The difluoride was the first ionically conducting compound to be discovered (in 1838, by Michael Faraday).

    That's quite a claim. Electrolysis was invented in 1785. Do we mean the first ionic melt?
The idea is that it was the first solid substance found to conduct electricity. Also, the date should be 1834. Both fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I raise my eyebrows at the idea of a solid ionic substance conducting. Are you sure? --John (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about fast ion conductors? Might be worth a link if so. --John (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carbon (coke or gas) is added to the molten charge along with fluxing agents.

    Are we talking gaseous carbon here? Or a gas containing carbon? If it's the former that's remarkable, if the latter we should clarify which gas we're talking about.
We're talking about coke gas. Added a wlink.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a redirect to coal gas which explains Coal gas contains a variety of calorific gases including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and volatile hydrocarbons. Can we explain a little? --John (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coal gas was what I meant, of course. Perhaps it is best to add a note. Will do.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its prevalence in the human body—at an adult average of 120 mg[q]—is nevertheless exceeded only by zinc (2500 mg) and iron (4000 mg) among all metals.[209]

    Really? More prevalent than calcium, sodium, or potassium?
This should be "heavy metals," of course. Added.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be more to come but I can see supporting this time, once these few wrinkles are ironed out.

  • Further thought: why are lead-acid batteries still so widely used in cars when we have better, safer, lighter, more energy-dense batteries now?
Because they're cheap :) --R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could we source a sentence on that? --John (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added. (Also, from what I see, mass is not too much of an advantage because mass of an accumulator is nowhere near comparable with that of the whole car.)--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it diamagnetic? (This is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article!). --John (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask me, our infoboxes have a lot of information that shouldn't be there. I am struggling to convince WP:ELEM this is the case.
As for your question, here's an intriguing idea: Lead(0) itself is 6s26p1/22 [46]. (In addition to that, the next group 14 element, flerovium, has all paired electrons: [Rn]7s25f146d107p1/22; reasons for this are also found in lead, although to a smaller extent. Analogously, Bi+ is 6s26p1/22. [47].) This could very well be your answer. Not sure if we should discuss this in the text, though. (Not to mention I haven't yet seen a source saying that lead is diamagnetic because of this.) I need to consider it for a bit longer.--R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies; it might fit into the discussion of its superconductivity. Why does it superconduct at such a relatively high temperature? --John (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diamagnetic substances are characterised by having no unpaired electrons, as Pb2+ does. The inert pair effect explains why β-Sn is paramagnetic while Pb is diamagnetic, as R8R states, and since the inert pair's effects for chemistry are already mentioned I would support adding a little sentence about the effect on the magnetic ordering. (C, Si, Ge, and α-Sn are diamagnetic for different reasons, having molecular rather than metallic structures.) About the superconductivity of Pb – this is actually also interesting: having a close-packed fcc structure it should have too much damping of the electron-phonon interaction for superconductivity (you can imagine it as there being not enough room for lattice vibrations and hence Cooper pairing). The reason why Pb still superconducts has to do with its extraordinarily high modulus of elasticity (ref). Actually all the post-transition metals (including Zn, Cd, and Hg) are superconductorsat normal pressure, except for Bi which has a semimetallic band structure and needs to be pressurised: the absence of polonium from the list is probably more a case of absence of evidence than evidence of absence. I'm still searching for a source as to why its Tc is so high compared to the elements around it, though. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more I delve into this, the more I start thinking that this may very well be the sort of thing that cannot be explained easily without doubling the size of the section, but I shall keep trying for a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added diamagnetism without superconductivity; at this point I'm not even sure if the latter has an accepted explanation yet, much less one that won't drag the article's focus away for several paragraphs.. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the rationale now and I'm afraid this is unnecessarily complicated. I don't think we should include this superconductivity stuff.--R8R (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I hope you can live with the trims I did here and here. In each case, we had a major repetition, of the nuclear uses and of the chemistry of lead water pipes. --John (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to keep coming up with things. Why does lead have a different crystal structure from that of β-tin? John (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're not completely different; the tin structure is distorted fcc (tetragonal). The inert pair effect is significantly weaker for Sn than for Pb, so I think what has happened is that while Sn gives up its 5p electrons with about as much completeness as Pb for 6p, Ca for 4s, or Sr for 5s (the examples we give), the 5s electrons are also contributing weakly, being still somewhat held by the individual Sn atoms and localised. I admit readily that this is completely my OR and I haven't found a source for it yet, but it is not unheard of elsewhere in the table: the α-γ phase change in Ce comes from the localisation of the 4f electron (source), so if the s-electrons are partially delocalised in Sn and not at all in Pb it would adequately explain the difference in crystal structures, and the partial delocalisation accounts for the structures being different but not completely different.
    • Well, my OR train of thought for this persuades me that this would be a good thing to include! Now to find a real source for it. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, that's alright with me. I have lost the idea that many stars is the thing to aim for and that every obstacle is bad. Inversely, I think obstacles are good as they pose chances for improvement.
As for this one: I don't know if I'll be able to find anything sourced, but I'll give it a try. Not yet sure if I want to have it in, but let's see when/if I have found a source.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal chemistry of tetrahedral structures (Pathé 1964, p. 13) says that the structure of white tin can be derived from that of gray tin by compressing the tetrahedra of the latter along their cubic axes. So white Sn effectively has a structure intermediate between the tetrahedral structure of germanium and grey tin, and the fcc structure of lead, consistent with the general trend of increasing metallic character going down any representative group. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note to this effect. Sandbh (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the answers. I could keep making suggestions for a while yet but I think we are safely above the level of a Chemistry FA. Inasmuch as I can comment after 130 edits I now support this candidate. --John (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support and your improvements on prose! I've taken some notes from your go-overs on how to write my future texts.--R8R (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, it's been fun and I've learned a lot. A further question, sorry. We have Like the lighter members of the group, lead exhibits a tendency to bond to itself; it can form chains, rings, and polyhedral structures. in the lead, and we have brief mention in the organometallic section of chains, but there's nothing about rings or polyhedra. This means the claim is not referenced either. Would it be possible to write something about this, or remove it from the lead? --John (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rings and polyhedra are mentioned above when discussing Zintl ions; I'll make it clearer that this is what they are. Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added a brief explicit mention of rings and polyhedra. Double sharp (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If these are discrete covalently bonded moieties, could we call them "molecules" in the lead? --John (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are discrete covalently bonded moieties, but I'm not sure if "molecules" sits well as a term for them, since they are charged (there's a good reason why they're called Zintl ions). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking good...

lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC - this sounds odd to me - I'd say from 3000 BC in this case.
since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians - ditto here
These two have actually been discussed in the beginning of this review and we've agreed "since" is okay for our AmE purposes here.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, missed that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, lead production only began to revive in the 11th and 12th centuries, - "revive" looks a bit funny here. I always think of it either as a transitive verb or in the passive
According to Merriam-Webster, intransitive "revive" is fine. Maybe that's another ENGVAR thing?--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I couldn't imagine writing it this way in British English, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen this construction used in American English somewhere. Double sharp (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
During the period, lead mining proved important - you can remove this - the next sentence spells it out anyway

:::A good one, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but lead is more common than most of these metals, and lead-bearing minerals are easier to mine and process than those of many other metals - cumbersome, why not just, "Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but are [generally/for the most part] less common and more difficult to extract from parent ores"
Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One disadvantage of using lead is its toxicity, which explains why it has been phased out for some uses --> "Lead's toxicity has led to its phasing out for some uses"
Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

prose and comprehensiveness on point otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and your time! Much appreciated.
(Again, I'm sorry to have forgotten to say it when first replying to the comments.)--R8R (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl[edit]

  • From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.
For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that the sample must be cut; the point is that the sample must be pure, and freshly cut samples are purer until they undergo passivation in the air.
The source says, "В свежем срезе свинец является блестящим металлом серо-голубого цвета, который сохраняется в сухом воздухе, но быстро тускнеет в присутствии влаги." Google Translate translates it to "In a fresh cut, lead is a glistening gray-blue metal that persists in dry air, but quickly fades in the presence of moisture."--R8R (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Russian citation with an English one. Sandbh (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe I did try doing this before and I generally like having English-language sources whenever possible. This is definitely sort of information that should exist in English, I just didn't get to find it (in English).--R8R (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "new" reference ("Writers of Eminence") was written in 1880...? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are still many references to Polyanskiy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what R8R says (which accords with my experience looking for this), there may not be a good equivalent to Polyanskiy in English which is similarly comprehensive as a source. There are a great deal of good sources in other languages that languish untranslated (I am still waiting for a translation of the more recent editions of Holleman & Wiberg from German, for example), so I would be willing to make an exception for sources like this when they are very good. Double sharp (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the 1880 reference with a reference to G&E (1997). I understand (and support) the desire to have English-language sources in English Wiki instead of foreign-language sources whenever we can have an easy opportunity to have the ones in English; therefore, I've also replaced many references to Polyanskiy that were sufficiently easy to replace with references to other books (G&E, Ullmann, etc.) Those remaining are quite hard to replace, or at least so I found them; maybe there's a chance that that's been mentioned somewhere but this will require inadequate amount of work to find them.--R8R (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the situation, R8R. (I think you mean "inordinate", not "inadequate".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, "malleable" redirects to "ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.
How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?
Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink that I refer to is in the lead section. Regarding your suggestion of "often classified", lead is one of three elements that fit all of the criteria of heavy metals. I think its status as a heavy metal is more important than being "malleable", more so given that we already say that it is soft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on having "heavy metal" back, but does it have to be on expense of mentioning its malleability? Here's a solution close to what we've had before: "It is soft, malleable, and a heavy metal." Do you think it's okay to go?--R8R (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded further; please see now.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both the above suggestion and the current statement are fine. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Atomic", paragraph 1: "The similarity in lead is caused by the lanthanide contraction—the decrease in element radii from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (71), and the relatively small radii of the elements after hafnium (72)." The first wikilink goes to "atomic radius", which seems fine, while the second link goes to "ionic radius". Is this intentional? If so, the sentence should use the full names of the types of radii to make the distinction clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one! Yes, that second link doesn't belong there. Removed.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Bulk", paragraph 2: "It is the origin of the idiom to go over like a lead balloon." Shouldn't this be "to go down like a lead balloon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the source: "go over" is AmE, while "go down" is BrE. We use AmE in this article, so it's "go over."--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should give both versions, though. BrE users will understand AmE spellings, but they might not know all the different AmE idioms. Normally this doesn't come up because idioms are not really used in the sort of writing found on WP, but when the idioms themselves are the things being covered, I think it is justified. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This is sort of a minor detail I wouldn't want to interrupt the text with, but I've added a note (this is a fine solution here, I believe) mentioning the British version.--R8R (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works perfectly for me; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 3: "Their isotopic concentration in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of other elements. For example, the relative abundance of lead-208 can range from 52.4% in normal samples to 90% in thorium ores." The former sentence needs further clarification. I suppose that what is meant is that the percentages of the different lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the quantities of elements from the three decay series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you basically got that right. Does it look okay now?--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "nuclides" could be referring to the isotopes of lead or to the uranium & thorium isotopes. How about this: "The concentration of lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of radionuclides from these three decay chains." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's only Th and U that matter (the rest being their daughters whose occurrence depends totally on that of their planets), so I'd just refer to them as "these thorium and uranium isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've edited it to mention Th and U explicitly as the parents; it should be clearer now. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 4: "Lead-214, -212, and -211 are present in the decay chains of uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235, so traces of all three of these lead isotopes are found naturally." Why are these isotopes listed in descending numerical order? Also, I recommend adding "respectively" to the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", paragraph 3: "Organic acids, such as acetic acid, dissolve lead in the presence of oxygen." That's interesting. Why is oxygen required? This reference discusses humidity, but doesn't seem to mention oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into any detail here. It's a very respected source, though -- it even has a template for wiki citations: {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "A further sesquioxide Pb2O3 can be obtained at high pressure, along with several non-stoichiometric phrases." Should this be "phases"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. This has been fixed, though, but you spotted it well.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "Many of them show defect fluorite structures in which some oxygen atoms are replaced by vacancies." Should this be "defective fluorite structures"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 1: "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe3)2]2 as well as Pb(η5-C5H5)2." Is it relevant that the former chemical is purple? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "These compounds are relatively stable—tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C—or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." The use of the double dash effectively sets aside the text inside. This leaves the remaining statement: "These compounds are relatively stable or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." However this does not make sense. The statement needs to be re-phrased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Tetramethyllead is no longer implied. Is that intentional? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the text; it seems clear and correct to me.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "With sodium metal, lead readily forms an equimolar alloy that reacts with alkyl halides to form organometallic compounds such as tetraethyllead." My understanding is that an alloy is a mixture of two or more metals. (The article "Alloy" implies that non-metallic elements can be significant constituents.) For an alloy to be "equimolar" wouldn't this require the constituents to be present in equal quantities? In which case, this would only occur if the initial conditions included the elements in equal quantities? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the general principle vaguely but I'm not sure if I can explain it well. Some metals dissolve in each other and some don't. If I recall correctly, the equimolar alloy is a good solution with a good mixed crystal structure rather than a set of lead pellets within sodium or vice versa (so that there is some bonding between the two elements). Some small excess of either metal should not influence bonding, or does that only locally.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is indeed the definition of "equimolar" then the wikilink to "Mole (chemistry)" doesn't really make sense. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the link.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "Other organolead compounds are less chemically stable or unknown." I am unsure what "unknown" means in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the text originally read something like, "Other organolead analogs of organic compounds compounds are less chemically stable or unknown." The point is that there is no lead analog for every organic compound and lead analogs for many organic compounds don't exist. Do you think we should change the phrasing?--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Other organolead compounds are less chemically stable. For many organic compounds, a lead analog does not exist." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good; done.--R8R (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point: in "Origin and occurrence", subsection "In space", platinum and iridium have wikilinks, but the other elements do not. Why is this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those elements not linked have been linked by this point already.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... "Gold" and "osmium" were linked in the "Bulk" subsection. "Mercury" was linked in the "Isotopes" subsection. Those subsections are a long way before "In space". I suspect that most readers do not read the whole article from top to bottom. Anyway, I suppose it is not important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Prehistory and early history": "The Ancient Egyptians were the first to use lead in cosmetics, an application that spread to Ancient Greece and beyond." Was this lead metal, or a lead compound? This paper describes the artificial manufacture of two lead chlorides: laurionite and phosgenite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Egyptian black kohl was galena. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kohl the mineral (which is not galena but a closely related mineral) is not even a lead mineral, but it always contains lead as an impurity. The source also mentions almonds, which are actually used in cosmetics for making kohl the cosmetic. It seems they mixed the mineral and almonds; ashes and ochre seem to be fine in that mix just as well (as long as we're only concerned with color-making for cosmetics). And also, the source explicitly mentions lead---not lead rust, lead oxide, lead sulfide, or anything---just lead.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The very article that you refer to states "Galena eye paint (later termed Kohl in Arabic from the Akkadian word for the cosmetic) was widely applied in Ancient Egypt. Upper eyelids were painted black and lower ones were colored green, as depicted in ancient texts that describe the use of both black galena and green malachite." The article also describes the use of frankincense. "Kohl" is too generic a term to be used for one specific mineral. I disagree with your implication that "Kohl the mineral" refers only to stibnite and no other mineral. "And also, the source explicitly mentions lead---not lead rust, lead oxide, lead sulfide, or anything---just lead." Did you read the reference? It states "Egyptian women apply galena mesdemet (made of copper and lead ore) and malachite (bright green paste of copper minerals) to their faces for color and definition." There are plenty of sources that describe the Egyptians using galena as a cosmetic. They (and other civilizations) also used white lead as a white cosmetic. I am also surprised that you have not responded to my comment about this paper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep you waiting. I'll get to this in the coming days.--R8R (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I've taken another go and I see you must've been right. Even the name "laurionite" is familiar to me. I believe I've shaken it off prematurely.
I've added the word "minerals." Is it good to go with?--R8R (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that you could have expanded this a little, but it's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Classical era", paragraph 1: "Because silver was extensively used as a decorative material and an exchange medium, lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC, since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; by 1600 BC, lead mining existed in Cyprus, Greece, and Sicily." The grammar/syntax of the first part of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is not correct. Did the Phoenicians work deposits in Asia Minor since 3000 BC? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited and added more.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Middle Ages and the Renaissance", paragraph 2: "The use of such wine was forbidden in 1498 by a papal bull, as it was deemed unsuitable for use in sacred rites, but it continued to be imbibed and resulted in mass poisonings up to the late 18th century." Was it forbidden just for use in sacred rites, or was its recreational use also forbidden? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources only mentioned rites. I've researched for an hour or two to get an answer to this one and by now, I'm confident it dealt with these rites only.--R8R (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this. In which case the sentence needs to be re-phrased. How about: "The use of such wine was forbidden for use in Christian rites by a papal bull in 1498, as it was deemed unsuitable, but it continued to be imbibed and resulted in mass poisonings up to the late 18th century." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it on behalf of R8R Gtrs (we are both part of the Elements WikiProject). I didn't see anything that could be improved in the sentence you gave. Parcly Taxel 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "as it deemed unsuitable" part. To keep the prose grasp, we should minimize the number of words that don't add anything particularly new to the text. Otherwise, yes, sure.--R8R (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Modern era": "Countries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with." This sentence is somewhat clumsy. Can it be re-written? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded and merged with preceding sentence: "Mechanisms of harm were better understood, lead blindness was documented, and the element was phased out of public use in the United States and Europe." We're almost done with our source review, by the way. Parcly Taxel 10:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "History", the subsection "Middle Ages and the Renaissance" mentions the use of [unjacketed] lead bullets. In the "Modern era" subsection, is it worth mentioning that copper-jacketed lead bullets are still used? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. In the subsequent applications section lead bullets and California's ban on them are mentioned, which implies the continuing use of lead bullets (jacketed or not). It would not be pleasing for a reader to encounter the same thing in two different sections. Parcly Taxel 16:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Double sharp[edit]

I'll heartily add my support based on all the improvements that have been carried out for this excellent element article. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and kind words! (I'd want to add another word, but nothing falls on my mind. So just thank you!)--R8R (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One small thing about the s-process graphic: alpha decay of 210Bi is a very minor branch and I think it may be better to not mention it entirely (also in the text). Perhaps we should also deemphasise the cycling from 210Po and beyond, because the cross-sections for neutron capture of 208Pb and 209Bi are very low, so this is actually not a very major contribution (10.1103/PhysRevC.70.065803); a lot more lead (about one-third of 206Pb and 207Pb) actually comes from the r-process from the decay of the elements in the Po–Ac valley. Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on the Bi-210 bit. Will do. As for cycling, not yet so sure. IIRC, according to B2FH, this is an important factor. The paper you cite is more up to date, but I'd want to know that other authors confirmed this. B2FH has too much reputation to be simply overwritten by one paper.--R8R (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a minor detail in the picture, and I think we currently leave it vague enough to be fine. For instance, we don't say how much the cycling factor multiplies the observed abundance of Pb and Bi, and by not saying how major it is we don't make readers wonder how come capture past the closed shell is totally fine in the s-process and disfavoured in the r-process. Removing the alpha branching of 210Bi is more important, I think. (B2FH treats it as important, but in that time the alpha-decaying isomer was thought to be the ground state: now we know that it is an isomer and will quickly de-excite in a stellar environment and have no time to go to A = 211 before terminating the chain.) Double sharp (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's leave it there. As for Bi-210, I'm trying to update the file and unfortunately, it won't work, but I'll keep trying.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must be a cache issue; it still shows the alpha decay of 210Bi at my computer at home, but it's gone on my phone. Given that, I have no further reservations. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester[edit]

A well referenced and well written article on an important scientific topic. A few tiny points that don't really affect my support, but could be neater:

  • The white face became a "symbol of a Japanese woman", with lead commonly used in the whitener. Why is "symbol of a Japanese woman" in quotes? It's sufficiently vague that I don't think it needs to be marked as a direct quote, and if you do want it be a quote, it's not clear which of the three references cited in that sentence you're quoting.
Yes, it does seem like a phrase I'd rather treat as a quote rather than state. Moved one reference to show which one I am referring to and added a precise quote.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exposure to airborne lead from the combustion of tetraethyl lead in gasoline during the 20th century has been linked with historical increases in crime levels, a hypothesis which is not universally accepted I'd add "...and subsequent decreases..." - the striking part of the hypothesis is the decrease in crime with the introduction of "unleaded fuel". Also, we actually have an article on the Lead and crime hypothesis which should be linked.
As for "decreases": yes, you're right. Done. As for link: this actually has been discussed this and I thought we'd reached an agreement on having that link! Added.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with European industrialization, lead has had a negative effect on health in China. Something like "As was the case during European industrialization" might be clearer - it sounds like it's saying that European industrialization had a negative effect on health in China. Smurrayinchester 12:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support. Smurrayinchester 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

  • Have I missed a source review for formatting and reliability above? If we still need one you can request it at the top of WT:FAC.
  • That aside, it looks to me that we've pretty well achieved consensus to promote here but pls jump in, reviewers, if I'm speaking too soon... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still in the process of reviewing the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing every source, but it will take a while. See above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are we progressing here? I'd really like to wrap this up soon. Axl, do you have more to add to your review? And Graeme Bartlett how is the source review looking? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am perhaps one third of the way through a full review of the article. If you cannot wait any longer, I suppose that since several editors already support the article, you should close with promotion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait longer here, there is no particular rush as long as things are still progressing. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got up to "e" with references. It showed that many references could be improved in some way, and perhaps 5% of facts were not supported by the supplied reference. But I don't expect that other featured articles are any better in this respect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now up to "G". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by edwininlondon[edit]

Sorry for being late to the party, but a few more comments from a non-expert:

  • Compounds of lead are usually found in the +2 oxidation state, rather than the +4 common with lighter members of the carbon group. -> this doesn't tell me unambiguously that lead is part of the carbon group. I would expect that in the first or second sentence.
  • lead's upper neighbor in group 14 ->I haven't been told that group 14 is the same as carbon group. In fact, because both were links I assumed they were different
These two make a good call. There is no need to use both terms. I've changed all to "carbon group." Really, very well spotted; this is why I love having non-pro reviews. Thank you already at this point for taking part.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The similarity in -> similarity of what?
Reworded this one.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the outer electrons are drawn towards the nucleus -> isn't that always the case? (excuse my ignorance)
No problem at all, quite the contrary; I like writing good accessible texts and this sort of comments is what helps to check what I might have missed. Yes, it is always the case. What the text is trying to say is this: Outer electrons are, of course, attracted to the nucleus because their charges have different signes. However, outer electrons are repelled from the inner electrons because have charges of identical signs; this is the "shielding" referred to in the text. Comparing lead (element 82) to tin (element 50), the charge of the nucleus is almost two-thirds higher but the "new" electrons (present in lead but not on tin) should have shielded the nucleus better so that the resulting attraction to the nucleus is weaker (this, to oversimplify it, is why the vertical periodic trends are a thing). However, 4f electrons don't shield as well as one could have imagined and lead's outer electrons should have been not as well drawn to the nucleus as they are. Hope this explains it.
Now that you got it (if you didn't, feel free to ask any further questions), is there any rewording you could suggest?--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I get it. I actually think it is better then to just remove this statement altogether. It only raises questions unnecessarily. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Done.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • making the distance between nearest atoms in crystalline lead is unusually long -> superfluous is
Done, thank you.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the origin of the idiom  -> what is "It" referring to?
Density; clearified that.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • small amounts of copper or antimony -> antimony should be a link
Sure.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beginning of the Inorganic compounds section feels repetitive: was this not already discussed in a previous section?
Sort of. The basic reasons why some lead's physical charactersitcs and chemical characteristics differ from those of the lighter carbon group elements are often identical. For example, the inert pair effect is mentioned first as a reason why lead's crystal structure is different than those of tin, germanium, etc. (in Bulk) and then as a reason why lead's oxidation states are different (in the beginning of Chemical characteristics) becuase it is both. However, I've removed one unnecessarily repititive sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to the Pb–C bond being rather weak -> How weak? What is the bond energy? I only ask because you just mentioned 98 and 356.
I think it's best we move from those numbers at all. It's the relative difference that matters here, not the values themselves.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • galena (a common lead mineral). -> I don't think we need the info in parentheses, already mentioned 2 paragraphs ago
Good.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ; by 1600, lead mining existed -> BC I presume
Indeed.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other researchers have criticized such claims, citing errors in linking the fall of Rome to lead poisoning, -> not much of an explanation I think
This is written this way only to stress the issue in the final claim ("false evidence"); some textual dramaturgy. Is it not okay?--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be better. Something along the lines of "Other researchers have criticized such claims, pointing out for instance that not all abdominal pain is caused by lead poisoning." Which is what I got from the 2nd source. I can't get to the first, but I'd prefer a bit more detail over the vague statements.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. I have used your suggestion except I added commas before and after "for instance," which, as I just checked, seems to be correct for AmE.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sound deadening -> What physical aspect of lead makes it a good sound deadening material? Why?
Good one. This will require some phrasing and source referencing accurateness checking so it'll have to wait for a while; hopefully, I'll get to this tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead in the early 21st century is in lead–acid batteries -> was already linked
Right. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this well-illustrated, interesting article. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked it; thank you for taking part. It's this sort of reception that really pushes me forward.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I see there are quite a few issues still with the references:
  • 32 102 104 113 132 135 150 155 156 157180 190 202 219 all show up as red Harv errors. Half of those seem to come from V. Rich being either 2013 or 2014. Amazon BTW says it is 1994.
Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular way of how you find these? If there's an automated tool, I'd love to know as I've wanted to employ one.
I was told to install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see them highlighted. It's great.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, fixed these links. (Removed one as the source has been removed but the sentence it was supposed to support somehow wasn't.)--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parcly Taxel[edit]

With the editing that has taken place since Edwinlondon's comments on 3 June, a few new Harvard errors have come up (I use the same Ucucha script): Bremholm, Gottschlich, Hunter, Insel, Klatt, "Lead Paint Information", Sohn, Writers of Eminence. Would you care to remove those unused references as well? There's also the OED citation, which is reported as an error by the same script; perhaps it could be expanded into a full citation so as to avoid the error.

As well as that, is there someone willing to continue the source review begun by Graeme Bartlett above? Nevertheless, I still support this candidate for FA status – the layout is the same as that of fluorine, the one I myself nominated, and the prose itself is very clear and tight. Parcly Taxel 02:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done by nominator. I have no other issues. Parcly Taxel 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing my attention to this. And thank you for your support!--R8R (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining references for checking[edit]

@Dank:@DePiep:@John:@Casliber:@Axl:@Double sharp:@Smurrayinchester:@Edwininlondon:@Parcly Taxel:

As per Graeme Bartlett's leading efforts encompassing A–H, are you able to check one or more sets of references, by letter, and report the results here? If so, please you add your name to the following table:

Letter Checker
A–H Graeme Bartlett ✓
I–K Sandbh ✓
L Graeme Bartlett ✓
M Parcly Taxel ✓
N Edwininlondon ✓
P Parcly Taxel ✓
R Sandbh ✓
S Sandbh ✓
T–Z Parcly Taxel ✓

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a complaint about the page numbers. They should be included in the references section where there is only one page or footnote using it. They should not only be in the footnotes section. I see R8R Gtrs is removing the pages numbers. This is a disservice to our readers, (and also makes it more difficult for me/us to check).
I'd argue otherwise: I believe it is the best of service (I wouldn't be doing this otherwise). I believe that uniformity is an advantage as it becomes easier to check multiple sources: you only have to follow one pattern of referencing styling instead of two. My common sense is also telling me that the section titled Bibliography should only mention works and not pick parts of it; WP:BIBLIO does not answer the question explicitly but shows no sign that this information should ever be included.
(Apart from easier orientation, uniform reference styling is good because it is easier to maintain, which may become an issue over time.)--R8R (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Ref check completed. Over to you for follow-up actions. Nearly there :) Sandbh (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(left: History of Cosmetics) Parcly Taxel 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see this only now: the ping somehow didn't get through. Thank you everyone.
I think all is clear now. Please report if I'm mistaken.--R8R (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@R8R: I believe these are the only ones that have not been closed off: Ashikari; Bergeson; Christensen; Frankenburg; History of Cosmetics; How does lead; Hunt; Lewis; Nakashima et al 1998; Nakashima et al 2007; Nosengo; Polyanskiy; Roederer (seems like an unsubstantiated inference to me rather than what the author actually says);^ Rogalski. Sandbh (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^ try this one, or add it to the cite as confirmation. Sandbh (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: R8R and I have fixed most of those problems already. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Parcly Taxel:@R8R:OK, I felt it was important to make this clear to the FAC coordinators. I just read through the list and couldn't tell one way or the other if they'd been done. If you or R8R could let me know when they're all done let me know and I'll ping the FAC coords. Sandbh (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: @FAC coordinators: We have addressed or otherwise resolved all the issues with the references that have been pointed out here. Based on the comments and multiple supports, I believe that any remaining issues would be extremely minor. I think we can promote this article now. Parcly Taxel 07:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this will take some time for the coords to walk through and I'm unlikely to get to it today but at least it seems to be on the home stretch... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I–K[edit]
  • Information for Community Confirmed. Changed the sfn from "Information for Community" to the author i.e. "Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry." The bibliography entry was "Information for the Community Lead Toxicity". I added a colon between "Community" and "Lead" in the title, to match the actual title. Reliable source. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jensen Confirmed. Corrected title from "Online Location of Faults on AC Cables in Underground Transmission" to "Online Location of Faults on AC Cables in Underground Transmission Systems". Reliable source.
  • Jones Confirmed. but only as far as the US and British expressions. Corrected title from "Jedburgh Justice and Kentish Fire: The Origins of English in Ten Phrases and Expressions" to "Jedburgh Justice and Kentish Fire: The Story of English in Ten Phrases and Expressions". Corrected ISBN. Corrected page number. Trimmed entry field in biographic entry since the page number is given. Added another source making clear the connection to the high density of lead. Reliable sources. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Confirmed only for citations b and c. Citation a refers to the formation of "Pb(OH)+ and finally Pb4(OH)4" [confirmed] and then goes on to say "(in which the hydroxyl ions act as bridging ligands)" [I could not find anything in King supporting this last bit]. ISBN corrected. Publisher corrected. Reliable source. Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Konu & Chivers Unconfirmed but should be OK. Corrected editor details and ISBN. Reliable source. Sandbh (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Koshal Says the mp of lead is low, rather than low compared to most other metals. Replaced with International Lead Association factbook cite, which confirms this.
  • Kosnett Confirmed
  • Krestovnikoff Looks good. I could not check the page number but the use of lead weights to provide buoyancy in scuba diving is well known; corrected publisher.
  • Kroonen Looks good. Added volume details to bibliography entry. Ce article text to bring it more into line with source. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
L[edit]
  • Langmuir 1 use reliable book reference, facts confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Lansdown seems to be actually written by Sivaraman Guruswamy according to what I see on Google books. ISBN is 0-8247-8247-X, page 240 is correct and fact is confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the Lansdown and Guruswamy references had their links accidentally swapped. I've removed the Lansdown ref, since the Guruswamy ref confirms. Parcly Taxel 02:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead sling bullet should be reliable web site, caption confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead garden ornaments primary web site, fact confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead in waste government authoritative web site, fact confirmed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead mining - Anonymous newspaper extract, perhaps a book reference would be better. fact confirmed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ×Leonard primary journal reference, facts not confirmed. (it confirms that Lead-based coloring agents was used at least once in glaze in the 1950s only) New reference may be required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, there is another reference tight there which, since it begins with a "B", must've been checked already. So I removed this one.--R8R (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levin H book ref with 1 use, fact confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levin R review from journal, fact confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Lewis web extract from a EPA Journal May 1985, original citation info is missing. should be reliable. fact confirmed.
    Done. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lide confirmed. Updated cites and edition to 85th. Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ×Livechart added "IAEA - Nuclear Data Section" as author name. Cites a, b, e confirmed. Cite d unsure. Cites c and f not supported.
I confirm the cite d (click the corresponding square and see the table below the chart). Removed c; surprisingly, this even does not make us have to have another ref because the ref at the end of that sentence will suffice. Removed the last sentence for the cite f.--R8R (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liu confirmed. Added other authors.
  • Lodders Not confirmed. This is a rather long dense article and I was not able to find supporting infomation for any of the five cites. Specific page numbers would be helpful. All five cites are currently shown as pp. 1220–47. Sandbh (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All the data happens to be on two tables from pages 1222 to 1224. I've added specific page numbers and a link to the PDF. The calculations needed to derive the given figures have been explained well enough. Parcly Taxel 10:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
M[edit]
  • Macintyre CRC book, reliable. Fact confirmed.
  • Macomber I did not even see the word "lead" on page 230, only a table of bond dissociation energies. Is the statement about lead tetrahalides already covered by Greenwood & Earnshaw?
Probably a remainder from some old phrasing? Removed; thank you.--R8R (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcillac Nature article, fact confirmed.
  • Marino Journal source reliable. The article only confirms the second sentence about lead dust; what about the first (regarding white lead and lead chromate)? Found with the Crow article (see Why use lead).
  • Markowitz Reliable journal, fact confirmed.
  • Masters Found the same citation on lead poisoning. Did not check, but from the two citations there I can infer that the page number should be accurate for the facts it supports. Confirmed.
  • Meija From the IUPAC themselves. This one's a no-brainer.
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, OK.
  • Moore Journal article, fact confirmed.
  • Mosseri Same as for Moore.
  • Mycyk Did not check, but should be OK. Found this on the lead poisoning article too.

Parcly Taxel 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N[edit]
  • I fixed formatting of a few
  • will check sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nakashima et al 1998 should have {{sfn |p=59 and not 55-60 because that's the only page it back up the claim
  • Nakashima et al 2007 is not actually needed, as it is basically the same study, and 2 references does not make it more true
    The 2007 ref was removed and the 1998 ref's page number was added. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Council on Radiation Protection - Confirmed. Trimmed page numbers. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - citation (a) confirmed. Title corrected. Citation (b) not confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Replaced with the OSHA reference. Parcly Taxel 03:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NIOSH Adult Blood - not confirmed.
    Removed and replaced with the OSHA reference. Now only the History of Cosmetics ref has a problem. Parcly Taxel 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikolayev, S., ed. (2012). "*lAudh-". Indo-European Etymology. starling.rinet.ru. This is down as a book but I couldn't find it anywhere and the url given doesn't work.
I've corrected the link. Also, I've seen articles on proto-etymology that referred to this database (at starling.rinet.ru), so this must be good apart from just confirming the fact.--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonlead. Amended author details and footnote. Confirmed.
  • Norman. Confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nosengo did not actually back up the claim made. But it's an interesting application worth mentioning.
    Removed. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nriagu (1983) I can't see the article but the bibliographic details are OK and I know from other refs that this cite is consistent with the article text. Changed rest of article title to lower case. Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nriagu (2000) Looks OK. Amended author names. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuclear. Confirmed. Amended author details and added wlink. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P[edit]
  • Park Journal article, fact confirmed.
  • Parker A thorough exposition of one kind of boat-building process. Fact confirmed.
  • Parthé I've added the ISBN, a Google Books URL and the correct publisher to this one; fact confirmed.
  • Pauling Did not check, but considering the title and the author I'm going to call this reliable and confirmed for both uses.
  • Polyanskiy A Russian source; same as for Pauling. Is there an ISBN?
    I consider that enough references to this book have been substituted or removed that it is no longer a major issue. Parcly Taxel 06:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prasad Reliable book. I guess the facts are relatively obvious and would be included inside, though I could not check.
  • Primary Extraction Made redundant by the far more reliable Thornton reference that appears beside it and which confirms the same thing; I've removed it.
  • Primary Lead Refining Four uses. Archived website from a lead association, all facts confirmed.
  • Progressive Dynamics Just a note on how lead–acid batteries work, but it's OK and all.
  • Putnam Reliable book. Fact confirmed.
  • Pyykkö He's the one that gave us one more periodic table for the undiscovered elements. It's a reference in a note and it looks OK.
R[edit]
  • Rabinowitz - The entries for the chapter title and the title of the book were the wrong way round. Now fixed. Corrected the publisher entry. Added chapter page range. The rest is good. Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiation your Health - Added author name as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; deleted publisher since this was the same. Otherwise confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramage - Changed author --> editor; amended publisher details. Unable to check page number but statement appears reasonable, and I remember reading something like this elsewhere. Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randerson - Added publication issue details; amended journal details. Confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rappoport - Changed authors to editors; added chapter authors, chapter name, and page range. Corrected publication date. Confirmed.
  • Reddy - checks out. I changed the cite to give the precise page number and moved the page range into the bibliography.
  • Regulatory status etc - Added USEPA as author; deleted publisher since this is the same; amended title. Checks out. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retief - is good.
  • Rich - although fact for b is confirmed in book, it sounds dubious: "Lead has no natural resonance frequencies". for ref a: Why is "high ... atomic number" relevant to sound absorption? It is correlated with atomic weight and density however. Perhaps "The International Lead Trade" is not as reliable as we expect it to be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With two exceptions, all of these cites check out, from what I could see. One was out by a page; the other did not directly support the statement it was was attached to. Both fixed. The book says the most important of lead's properties, in the context of its use as a barrier to radiation, sound, and vibration, are its density, high atomic no., and formability. That Pb has no natural resonance frequencies is confirmed by Ross in the Metallic Materials Specification Handbook 1992, vol 1., p. 203. According to our own article on Woodhead Publishing they are regarded as a reputable publisher. Sandbh (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rieuwerts - OK from what I could see
  • × Riva - Partly confirmed. I wasn't able to find anything in this ref supporting the assertion that, "in the last quarter of the 20th century, the percentage of people with excessive lead blood levels dropped from over three-quarters of the United States population to slightly over two percent."
It is a pity: I certainly recall seeing it somewhere. I'll look for it.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm onto this. Will add it whenever I have enough time.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added more detail in the phrase in question; added a new ref.--R8R (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • × Roederer - I wasn't able to find anything in the article supporting the assertion that the amount of Pb in the Universe is slowing increasing (although I may have missed it). Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a running theme throuoghout the text: "In this way, the Pb and Bi abundances in a star enriched by r-process material will increase with time as these heavier nuclei gradually decay"; "At low metallicity, an increase in the Pb abundance is one of the earliest signatures of s-process nucleosynthesis"; etc.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added the suggested additional reference under the name of Lochner. Parcly Taxel 07:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Rogalski - Corrected title and ISBN. The citation supports that statement that, "Lead-based semiconductors, such as lead telluride, lead selenide, and lead antimonide are used in photovoltaic cells and infrared detectors." The page range given is 485–541 which is the chapter on IV-VI detectors. It would be helpful to have more specific pages numbers. Sandbh (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is much of an issue, given that the fact isn't that complex. Parcly Taxel 07:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • × Röhr - Undated university lecture notes. Very likely to be right but won't do for an FA article.
These are actually dated: the website says the following: "1. Fassung vom WS 98/99, überarbeitet im März 2001 für den Vortrag bei der DGK 2001 in Bayreuth, weitere Aktualisierungen im WS 03/04 und im SS 2014. Im SS 2017 werden einige eigenschafts- und anwendungsrelevanten Aspekte (Materialien: Magnetmaterialien, Supraleiter, PC-Materialien, Heusler-Verbindungen, usw.) als Exkurse ergänzt." (WS = Wintersemester, SS = Sommersemester). Updated the reference and expanded formatting. And why will it not do?--R8R (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is good; upon further examination I withdraw my concern. The notes are fine. They contain text, illustrations for the lecture Intermetallic Phases. The author, Röhr, is widely published in the field of intermetallics. Sandbh (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rudolph - OK based on the very limited things I could see about this one. Sandbh (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
S[edit]
  • Samson - confirmed
  • Scarborough - confirmed
  • Scoch - confirmed Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schoeters - confirmed
  • Settle - not required; deleted
  • Sharma 2013 - confirmed
  • Sharma 2014 - confirmed
  • Shell - link to web page of unknown reliabity; it's probably right, but this is an FAC
    Replaced with a Stone ref from Science. Parcly Taxel 07:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant - OK; added likely author details Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silverman - confirmed; corrected article title
  • Sinha - confirmed; added article page range
  • Smirnov - looks OK; removed duplicate page range
  • Smith - looks OK
  • Sokol - confirmed; corrected chapter title; publisher; page nos; added article page range Sandbh (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stabenow - confirmed; trimmed duplicate page #; added article page range
  • State - confirmed; corrected author and title
  • Street - confirmed; added edition
  • Szczepanowska - confirmed; corrected ISBN
T–Z[edit]
  • Takahashi Physical Review C article. Fact confirmed.
  • Tarragó ATSDR report, reliable. Facts confirmed.
  • NIOSH This actually belongs at N, but it's reliable (a lot of organisations depend on this book) and the facts are confirmed.
  • Tétreault Deals with the same statement as Thurmer. Facts confirmed, article in JSTOR.
  • Think Lead A company brochure. I was initially doubtful whether this was reliable or not, but I guess it is, in which case the facts are confirmed.
  • Thomson Very old history book, but OK. Fact confirmed.
  • Thornton See Primary Extraction above.
  • Thurmer Science article. Facts confirmed.
  • Toronto News from the AuBC, so reliable, fact confirmed.
  • ToxFAQs Another ATSDR report. Fact confirmed.
  • Toxic substances Ditto ToxFAQs and Tarragó (i.e. it's good).
  • Trace element Article from a branch of the International Energy Agency. Facts confirmed for both uses.
  • Tuček A nuclear conference paper. While "molten lead" isn't directly mentioned, the coolant use is indeed confirmed throughout the paper. Reliable!
  • USGS
    • The facts covered by the 2016 report also appear in the 2017 report, so I've used the latter (and updated the numbers accordingly). The 2005 report is confirmed.
    • The 1973 book mentions Sardinia and not Sicily. I've corrected that; everything else is confirmed.
  • US FDA Other than a typo in the page number (41 instead of the correct 42), confirmed.
  • UNEP Confirmed.
  • UC Berkeley Confirmed, though the linked website uses our (Wikipedia's) data and images, even going so far as to attribute, which is thus circular referencing. Perhaps use Nubase for this?
I decided this was okay since the information that we refer to (the fact that there are these chains) does not rely on what they copied from Wiki.--R8R (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vasmer Dictionary definition, should be OK (considering that the nominator is a native Russian).
  • Venugopal I didn't get any hit on Google Books or the Open Library for this. Besides, the WorldCat search gives 1977 books whereas the cited book is from 2013. Can we have an extant source for both citations?
The book exists; I've added a Google Books link. Unfortunately, the GB preview does not have this page and I don't quite remember when I added it (and if it was me who added it), so I can't comment any further.--R8R (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it as correct. Parcly Taxel 00:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book exists but the GB entry is wrong. I've fixed the cite and bib details. The page nos look OK judging from I can see in GB. Sandbh (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vogel National Park Service article. Fact confirmed.
  • Waldron It's a review of another book, but the citation is for doubt of that book. Fact confirmed.
  • Wani OA reliable journal article, fact confirmed.
  • Weast CRC Rubber Bible. No-brainer for this one since it's in the infobox.
  • Weatherings to Parapets An image from a construction company, which I guess is reliable. Fact confirmed.
  • Webb A review of superconductivity in Physica C, fact confirmed.
  • Whitten Did not check, but title suggests that the fact is contained inside, and it is definitely a reliable source.
  • Why use lead Added author of the reliable RSC news, shifting it to Crow. Fact confirmed, and indeed this gives the source for the first half of the Marino citation.
  • Wiberg Although I did not check, this is a major reference work, so I'm calling this reliable and confirmed for all four uses.
  • Wilkes Same as for Whitten.
  • Willey From the Skeptical Inquirer newsletter. Fact confirmed. (They tested this on MythBusters too…)
  • Winder Two references from a published book (not self-published) combine for seven uses. All facts confirmed and reliable.
  • Windholz Did not read, but since it's the Merck Index it should be OK.
  • WHO Fact confirmed.
  • Yong Journal article; image whose caption it appears in confirmed by the graphical abstract.
  • Young From the US Coast Guard's official blog. Fact confirmed.
  • Yu Book source. Fact confirmed.
  • Zhang Reliable journal article, fact confirmed.
  • Zhao A review book. Fact confirmed.
  • Zuckerman Did not check, but judging from the book's title the fact is OK.
  • Zweifel Same as for Zuckerman.
  • Zýka Same as for Zhang.

Parcly Taxel 08:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has had an exceptionally thorough review, and could probably have been closed some time ago. However, the nominator and reviewers are to be commended on their thoroughness and wish to make this really top quality. I've read over this page a few times now, and have been keeping and eye on it and I'm pretty sure all the issues have been addressed. There are a few reviewers who left comments without supporting but there have been no major concerns raised that are outstanding that I can see, and certainly no opposition. There has also been substantial support and this has had more eyes on it than any FAC I remember in a long time. If any reviewers plan to comment further, discussion could continue on the article talk page. There is certainly a consensus that this meets the FA criteria and there is no real benefit to keeping this open any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2017 [48].

History of the British penny (1901–1970)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Arwel Parry (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC),[reply]

This article is about... a coin that made pockets heavier than they are today, but nevertheless iconic for its portrayal of Britannia. This is about its final seventy years or so, including the great rarity of 1933. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Nicely done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed. I've played with one or two of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first two changes I see look good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A nice piece of work! Some initial comments:

  • "saw the final years of its striking as a large, non-decimal coin" - I found this clunky as a the very first sentence of the lead. It didn't flow well for me.
I've played with it.
  • "the obverse of the bronze coin" - "obverse" is clearly the right word for a numismatic article, but it isn't a common term outside the field. I'd have advised "the obverse, or front, of the bronze coin" on first use, particularly since it is in the lead.
I've linked and called it heads.
  • "they were coined principally to be placed beneath foundation stones" - "principally" doesn't quite fit with the main text, which says that only 3 were coined for that purpose, and between 4 and 7 for use in museums.
There are only two in museums. The remaining pieces, the provenance is a bit uncertain. Royal Mint employees of long standing were sometimes presented with proof coins and there is speculation that may have been the source. But we don't know. In any event, three struck for foundation stones, two for the museums, and two unknown, well, given that these might not exist at all but for the need for foundation coins, I think the language is justified.
The main text, though, currently says "the Mint struck three 1933 pennies for this purpose, plus a small number of additional pieces for its own museum and for the British Museum", and then clarifies that the "small number" is between four and seven, and is probably four - which still means that the three 1933 pennies for foundations are in the minority of those struck, with those struck for the museums in the majority. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been more explicit on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While on the 1933 story... "by thieves who managed to remove the set of coins from beneath the church" - this implies we've already told the reader about a set of coins - we've only mentioned a single coin, though, the 1933 penny.
The reader's been told the King placed sets of coins under the buildings. The entire set was stolen from under that church, not merely the penny.
  • "as it was claimed" - unclear by who was doing the claiming from context - newspapers? collectors? the public?
It seems the public, at least by implication. Tweaked.
  • Worth checking the capitalisation of "king" and "queen" against the MOS advice at MOS:JOBTITLES - there are quite a few instances where the MOS requires capitalisation.
By going to title case in the translated Latin, I think we're good there.
Still not done: as per the MOS, where "king" refers to a specific king, it should be capitalised - e.g. "on the King's death", as the term is a substitute for Edward VII's own name. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, should be good now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing: fn 19, 27 etc. put Coin News and Numismatic articles in long format in the footnotes; Skellern's articles in Coin News are cited in short form, with the article in the bibliography. The referencing style needs to be internally consistent.
Done.
  • Mintages section needs citation.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "The Old Currency Exchange" a reliable source? (open question, but there doesn't seem to be a name of a real-world author, and it appears self-published)
Coin dealers are reputable professionals in the field and I think (where not self-promotional) can be cited within their field of expertise, in my view. We freely cite other commercial enterprises, after all.
  • Bibliography: "Lobel, Richard, ed" needs a location and publisher; you should probably be consistent on whether you prefer Ltd or Limited. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I think we got everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hchc2009, can I just double check that you've completed your review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and remained with some modification until the year of the king's death," - capitalisation of "king"
  • " officials at the Royal Mint planned for the new coinage, to bear the image of her son and successor, Edward VII" - I had to read this twice, as the comma after coinage initially looks like an error (it isn't, but it feels that way until you get to the end of the sentence)
  • "the three billion pennies in circulation" in 1936 - I'd advise against using "billion" whereever possible - there are traditional US/UK differences, and the UK government changed the version of "billion" it used in 1975; spelling it out as £3,000 million (it that's what meant) would be safer) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just means the sheer number of pennies. I've gone to 3,000,000,000 though if anyone wanted to change it to 3,000 million I would not object. The other two things I've adjusted. On the first one, I feel that if I move up "Edward VII" in the sentence, then I wind up having to explain that they were expected to have his image on them, which in theory may not be known to the reader. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Current ref 21 is "Coin News June 2014, p. 29" which appears to be referring to ""Edward VII Uniface Penny". Coin News: 26. June 2014." - can we make this consistent so it's easy to find if the article is ever printed out?
  • Same issue for current ref 37 "The Numismatist April 1968, p. 472" which appears to be ""Late World Coin News: Great Britain". The Numismatist: 472. April 1968."
  • Same issue for current ref 19 "The Numismatist July 2016, p. 29" which appears to be ""Pretty Penny". The Numismatist: 29. July 2016."
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent". Each article is less than a page and does not have a listed author. That is why they are listed by the publication name. I'll check the variation in the page number.
They are listed in the bibliography with title first, but the shortened footnotes list them by publication - this is the problem, it makes it more difficult to see which long citation corresponds to the short footnote, especially if the article is printed out. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is current ref "Bermuda" meant to be the "Bermuda Monetary Authority"?
  • Are the refs to "Coincraft" supposed to be corresponding to "Lobel, Richard, ed. (1999) [1995]. Coincraft's Standard Catalogue English & UK Coins 1066 to Date (5th ed.). London: Standard Catalogue Publishers Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9526228-8-8."? Because that's confusing, since we have an author.
We have an editor. Coin collectors, anyway, are more likely to know it by the name Coincraft, which is a prominent London coin dealer that issued the catalog.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the same issue applies here - non-coin collectors or people who print out the article are going to be confused and it makes it more difficult to connect the short footnote to the proper long citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Rodgers, Kerry (December 2016). "Fiji's World War II Emergency Reserve Bank of New Zealand Overprints". Coin News: 75–79." used in the article? I can't find it under "Coin News" or "Rodgers".
Ref 25.--00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In my view, coin dealer's sites, where not unduly self promotional, can be used for such. We use, after all, many other professionals..
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less certain on this one (as per my review above) - we don't seem to know who the author is and it is self-published by a website. I'd be much happier if there was evidence of this website being held in particular regard by the community etc. (I have no idea if it is or not, btw). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a high-powered British accountancy firm, with the publication for the use of clients and others.
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On this one, I think it looks reliable from a wiki perspective; the named author is governed by an accountancy profession; he's a former examiner of the Institute of Financial Management; etc. - while the article may not be peer reviewed and is self-published, the author's profession and role is subject to oversight, and he's held in high regard by it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they copied from us, as this article was stable for a long time. But I'll massage it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise[edit]

I have a couple of George V pennies in my childhood coin collection, so I was quite interested to read this article. OK, onto the issues:

  • Lead: "Only seven 1933 pennies were struck." The main text says "certainly fewer than ten and probably seven". Change the lead to "fewer than ten" or something else that sounds less definitive? Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only pattern coins were struck for the United Kingdom bearing Edward VIII's likeness; they are very rare and dated 1937." May I suggest reordering the sentence so that Edward VIII is closer to the beginning of the sentence and his name makes more impact? Currently, the transition between kings feels possibly too subtle.

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to the number known on the 1933. and addressed Edward. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Although commerce did not require them, pennies bearing the likeness of Elizabeth II were minted in 1953, using an obverse design by Mary Gillick. One 1954 penny was struck, for internal Mint purposes." I feel the first sentence doesn't fully capture what is in the main text, and the transition between the first and second sentence could be better. Would something like the following work: "A limited number of pennies bearing the likeness of Elizabeth II were minted in 1953—using an obverse design by Mary Gillick—but these were only released as specimen sets, not for general circulation. Likewise, only one 954 penny was struck, for internal Mint purposes." I'm not sure if you like my use of em dashes there, but I was just trying to reduce the number of commas that would otherwise be needed in the sentence. Moisejp (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits so far. I hope to continue my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • (minor suggestion) "The death of de Saulles in 1903 had led to the abolition of the post of Engraver, and coins for George V, who took the throne on Edward's death in 1910, were subject to a design competition won by Bertram Mackennal, who also prepared the medal for the Coronation." Suggest "The death of de Saulles in 1903 led to" (no had, which seems unnecessary here).
But we're backing up seven years into the past reign to discuss this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I misread the timeline. Sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No coins of King Edward VIII (1936) were officially issued, but a penny does exist, dated 1937. Technically, it is a pattern coin, one produced for official approval which it would probably have been due to receive about the time that the King abdicated." Is "technically" necessary here? What if you just said up front in the first sentence that it was a pattern coin. In the previous section, the four 1933 pattern coins produced are treated separately from the seven regular pennies known to exist. In this section, the use of "technically" sounds like the article is trying to have it both ways and say that it is a penny, but it's not really a penny. Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've eliminated the word "Technically," and changed "official" for "royal", which is the word the source uses. Yes, it is not really a "penny" in that it was never made current by royal proclamation.
  • "When the Royal Mint's Advisory Committee were considering the question of new designs for King Edward's coinage, they did not favour a new look for the penny. Rather, they sought the return of the lighthouse and ship, seen in the distance on either side of Britannia on pre-1895 pennies, but with the sailing ship seen on Victorian pennies replaced with a modern warship. Officials felt this too aggressive at a delicate international time". I understand the Advisory Committee wanted a warship while officials didn't. Does "officials" mean government officials, and is it clear what part they played in these decisions (did they outright veto it, or did they just suggest it—how did the decision process work?). If you don't have that information, or if you feel it is clear enough, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a bit vague. As Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, anything's possible. Two or three sources mention this generally, but none gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK.
  • "The old bronze penny was given no place as decimal currency was planned in the 1960s". Feels a bit awkward to me. Just a suggestion, but how about "The old bronze penny was not included in the decimal currency (that was) planned in the 1960s" (with or without "that was" as you see fit).

Those are all my comments. Moisejp (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've played with it, a bit differently. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my concerns are addressed. Happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Some of these comments may have been raised or superseded in earlier reviews. I've only managed the lead so far. First, though, a few general points:

  • The article title defines it as a history of the British penny from 1901 to 1970. OK, but the fact that the penny existed long before 1901 should be made much more explicit in your opening paragraph, rather than the somewhat casual reference to an "earlier penny" and the later mentions of the Victorian version.
  • I don't think this point has been addressed satisfactorily. There is nothing in this opening statement to indicate that the British penny is of very ancient vintage and that the subject of this article is merely its final manifestation. The phrase "based on the earlier penny..." is misleading as it implies a single predecessor. My suggestion is to rephrase the opening sentence, perhaps thus: "The British penny (1⁄240 of a pound sterling), was a large pre-decimal coin with a long history of circulation in many forms, which was struck intermittently during the 20th century until its final withdrawal after 1970" – and also change "and based on the earlier penny by his father William Wyon" to "based on an earlier design by his father William Wyon". Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're going to tell the reader who likely has no experience of any penny but the current, how old it is, we ought to do so directly. Accordingly, I've cited the fact in the lede sentence. Let me know what you think of how it is phrased.==Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with your treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for the best source on this ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had further thoughts about the sentence "The reverse design had in 1895 been modified by Engraver of the Royal Mint George William de Saulles." This seems to be a an incidental snippet – do we need to know this at this point? Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to draw a baseline. The 1895 revision removed the lighthouse and ship, which (to my mind anyway) is the most obvious distinction among the variations on the reverse. This is why the coin looked as it did in 1901. One idea is to directly mention the removal of the ship and lighthouse.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm happy not to pursue this further. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it's the case that on coins the monarch's head faces alternatively right and left on changes of reign (Ed7 right, GV left, Ed8 right [would have been], G6 left, E2 right) If this is so it might be worth a mention somewhere in the article if not in the lead - I'm sure some source covers it.
It is mentioned under Edward VIII.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In her review I thought Ealdgyth might have queried the reliability of the Daily Express as a source. These days, sad to say, the former Beaverbrook flagship has become a ludicrous tabloid rag, and I wouldn't accept anything it prints as reliable. It's in the same category, or worse, as the Daily Mail which I believe is more or less officially shunned by WP, as are the Sun, the Daily Mirror and their various Sunday counterparts.
She would have, no doubt, but I added it as replacement for a source that was questioned, earlier today. I will search for a further replacement source.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the D. Ex replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • First mention of "Victoria" should be to "Queen Victoria" and linked
  • "There are two varieties of the 1902 penny, with the difference in the water level on either side of Britannia; they are referred to as "high tide" and "low tide"." This is surely overdetailing here. Include it elsewhere, but it's not a leadworthy fact.
  • "Only seven 1933 pennies are known to have been struck. Commerce did not require more pennies; three were coined to be placed beneath foundation stones, from which one was stolen in 1970, with the other four known pieces used for museums or other purposes." This is a bit clumsy and muddled. I think the intended sense is "Because there were already sufficient pennies in circulation, only seven were struck in 1933. Of these, three were placed beneath foundation stones and the others placed in museums". I'd questiion whether even that pared-down version isn't overdoing the detail for lead purposes. Perhaps leave it as " Because there were already sufficient pennies in circulation, only seven were struck in 1933" and put the detail in the text.
Because it is something of a famous rarity, I think it deserves a little space. I've used a variation of your first suggestion.
  • "Pennies were struck again, in large numbers, beginning in 1961". A brief mention as to why, after so long a gap, would be helpful
  • There are a few prose infelicities in the lead that I'd probably alter, and I might do the odd tweak later.

More comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. If I haven't responded, I've addressed the matter (I will look for the infelicities).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All these OK. Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

Edward VII (pennies struck 1902–1910)
  • "...it was decided not to alter the reverses of the three bronze coins (the penny, halfpenny and farthing), as a new portrait of the Queen had been introduced in 1895." This does not seem like logical reasoning; a change in the Queen's portrait doesn't affect the reverse design. I suggest a simplification of the paragraph: "...it was decided not to alter the reverses of the three bronze coins (the penny, halfpenny and farthing), but to retain the 1895 design in which the Engraver of the Royal Mint, George William de Saulles, had modified Leonard Charles Wyon's depiction of Britannia—the lighthouse and sailing ship that had flanked her were removed."
"The British public had always been averse to changes in the coinage and the "Old Head" [of Victoria] coinage had been in use for so few years, it was inevitable that the new Edwardian coinage should make as few changes to the reverses as possible on the ground of expediency. ... The Annual Report of the Royal Mint for 1901 in contemplating changes for the new reign said that 'the changes of the reverses should be limited in number ...' ... It was not desirable to make any changes in the reverses of the bronze coinage (in view of the 1895 changes, particularly the withdrawal of the ship and the lighthouse introduced in 1860)." Possibly your ancestors were more averse to having the 50p coin (had they such a thing) used to advertise all the Olympic sports.
  • I'd add years to the 20 August and 10 December dates
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph appears to equate "technical standards" with metallic composition – this follows from the use of a mid-sentence colon. Perhaps: "Edward's penny is of the same technical standards as the final Victorian issues, and of the same composition: 95 percent copper, 4 percent tin and 1 percent zinc."
I've addressed it a bit differently.
George V (struck 1911–1936)
  • "...from 1922, those earlier coins no longer had to be in worn condition" – ambiguous as worded. I'm not sure what is intended - that worn pre-1895 coins were no longer accepted as currency, or that the PO/banks etc would accept the return of any of the older coins, worn or not?
  • "31 millimetres": In the previous section you gave the primary measurement in inches, with the mm conversion. You should be consistent.
  • In what way were the concerns outlined in the paragraph beginning "By the end of George's reign..." addressed, if indeed they were?
1933 rarity
  • "There was no need for the Mint to produce any pennies in 1933 because they were not needed in commerce...": clumsy (need/needed). Suggest reword "they were not needed in commerce" → "there was no demand from commerce". And "ample stocks" rather than just "ample"
  • The "University of London" is not a building, and could not have coins placed under it. It's like saying that a coin was placed under Oxford University. I imagine you mean Senate House, the London University's administrative HQ in Malet Street which was started at that time, but it might be worth double-checking from sources where the coin actually is.
That's where it supposedly is, though I see one source that suggests it is actually deep under it.
  • Re: "important new buildings": it's not clear why the two Leeds churches should both be honourd in this way and given the rare coin. There must have been dozens of significant buildings begun in 1933, so why choose two suburban churches?
I wondered that myself. The sources do not address it specifically, but the incumbent Bishop of Ripon had a slight royal connection.
Very slight - he was a King's Chaplain, a fairly routine church honour for bishops and suchlike. But never mind. I have done a little rewriting of this paragraph, which on further reading proved difficult to reconcile with what's in the Starck source (I sympathise - Starck is a terrible writer). Incidentally, there is no mention in the source of the king placing the Senate House coin, so that fact needs a separate source if it's to stay. By all means play with my wording further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peck says under "the new buildings" of the University dedicated on 26 June 1933, I've identified that with the Senate House in the second ref I've added. There's no mention of him dedicating multiple buildings, so I think I can get by with these two additional sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edward VIII pattern (dated 1937)
  • "...one produced for official approval which it would probably have been due to receive about the time that the King abdicated": official approval by whom? The monarch? The mint?
George VI (struck 1937–1952)
  • The first paragraph, or most of it, seems more properly to belong to the Edward VIII section, since it is mainly to do with modifications intended for Edward's stillborn coinage. Some adjustment advised.
  • Pedant's point: India gained its independence in August 1947. It took the coiners time to catch up.
More that it took time for a new set of royal abbreviations to be proclaimed. I think the existing language is OK.
  • "varies with the source" – I wouldn't put it like that, which might confuse readers. "Various raesons for the wartime break in coining of pennies have been given, with the 2000 edition... " etc. Or some such, precise wording for you to decide.
  • "the Mint reverted itself in 1959" – sounds like a bit of inadvertent Wikipediaspeak. I'd prefer "In 1959 the Mint resumed manufacture of pennies using the wartime alloy..."
  • Some additional artful linking possible, e.g. brass threepence coin, silver threepenny bit. This requires a little ingenuity.
  • Some of the stuff in the final paragraph is not really related to the George VI era, which ended in 1952.
I think the material related to the 1950 and 1951 pennies should stay in one place. It would look out of place if we moved it to the Elizabethan era..
Elizabeth II and end of series (1953–1970)
  • "The old bronze penny was given no place as decimal currency was planned in the 1960s". I'm not sure what you mean by "given no place", although it's fairly obvious that a coin worth 1⁄240 could not be incorporated into a decimal system.
There were at least some proposals that the new currency be based on the existing penny, though it likely would have been shrunk. But the Bank of England wanted the pound unaltered due to its status as a reserve currency. I don't think there's a problem with the phrasing, but am open to alternatives.
  • Final para: give a year for 31 August.

That's me done. You're not of course obliged to accept all my suggest prose amendments. I've done a little minor copyediting, too. Nice to see Wehwalt's expertise deployed on a more familiar coin (which, I'm sad to say, I remember well). Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. I never had to use the "old money" for real, absent the shillings and florins that still circulated my first two or three UK visits.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think the article has benefitted from these adjustments, and I'm happy to support its elevation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Thank you very much for your thorough review and support.--Wehwalt (talk)

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Mostly light-weight from an initial read. Will be supporting.

  • also saw use in - were issued in
  • had in 1895 been - was modified in 1895 by
I feel that by going back to before the timespan of this article, that "had" is justified.
  • I'd break this sentence at "and following"; . "Following..."
  • there were already sufficient pennies - don't need 'already'
  • From 1941 to 1943, during the Second World War - swap order - During the Second World War period of 1941 to 1943

More to follow. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Except as noted, I've either done as you suggested or played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • began to plan - planned. You don't plan a plan
  • A number of new coin designs had been introduced in the 1890s - a number of designs were...
  • had been introduced to them in 1895 drop 'to them'
  • Nevertheless...would cause. Don't think 'Nevertheless' is right; 'would cause' should be past tense
  • final Victorian issues, 95 percent copper - Maybe a semicolon after 'issues' Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a colon. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've look at a few of the authors used as sources, including Dr. Michael Freeman, H W A Linecar, and Peter Seaby. All first rank. Its a Support from me. As a side note, I wasn't around for pre-decimal coinage but do remember my mother complaining about the confusing new coins in the 70s. More confusing than 1⁄240 of a pound sterling? Ceoil (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you. I guess if it's what you've used all your life ... there are some films out there showing Granny learning to use the new system ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:1936 George V penny.jpg: License may need to indicate the copyright status of the photo the current template only discusses the coin, use is OK.
This has come up before, and the response I got at MCQ was that the act of uploading your own image to Wikipedia indicates an intent to license it with the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest here, Jo-Jo Eumerus? It is difficult to photograph just the set (every coin would be crown copyright expired) because of glare, so I included the case and paperwork.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am mostly concerned about the text. And maybe that artful font on the front of the passport (?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, you could trim the image from the left to remove the copyright text? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to get the lighting right on the coins. I'm going to cut it for now. If I add it back it will just be the coin set, but getting all the coins clear and without glare or the phone's shadow showing is proving to be a challenge.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most images don't have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the problem image and added alt text. Thank you for the review. and Hchc2009, for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2017 [49].

M-1 (Michigan highway)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about what is arguably the most important state-level highway in Michigan. It's the only All-American Road in the state and home to many of Detroit's historic sites as well as the city's entertainment districts. It's been a state highway for over a century. I think it's a subject worthy of evaluation for inclusion among Wikipedia's best work. Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this article at the previous FAC and have reviewed the changes since then and still feel this article meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed this article several years ago at the ACR stage, and commented extensively in the previous FAC. While I felt that there were some nitpicks that could have made the article better, I felt that the article was FA quality. I still feel the same way today, even after reading through the controversial Culture section. However, I do have a few comments:
    • Later, the street was home to the jazz clubs of the 1910s and 1920s - this is a bit vague/awkward. All the clubs? And just those of the 1910s/1920s?
    • During the 1940s, ministers lobbied for a law to prevent the issuance of additional liquor licenses in their neighborhood; the law was overturned in 1950 - missing context, or perhaps the order of the last 3 sentences in the paragraph should be rearranged
      • I think I clarified these two points together, trying to tie in the notion of transition from "sacred" to "profane" as noted in the quote at the end of the paragraph. Imzadi 1979 → 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • undergone a renaissance - a bit vague
    • important entertainment fixtures - according to?
      • Added a citation, tweaking the wording a bit to match. Imzadi 1979 → 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The district is the most compact collection in any American city - needs an "according to"
    • "huge crowds" - be more specific or drop it entirely. Rschen7754 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved up the specific example from later in the paragraph to clarify. Hopefully this helps, Rschen7754. Imzadi 1979 → 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - issues resolved. --Rschen7754 02:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "enough so that two of them were stolen in the first months after installation": There's a continuing discussion at FAC over whose opinions and actions are significant enough to warrant inclusion in featured articles. Some people want to see only those opinions with the highest levels of gravitas; others believe that polls of popular opinion are just as inclusion-worthy. No one has been arguing that the actions of vandals count as data to back up opinions. Some of the paragraph feels a little bit promotional to me, but it's not my call.
  • Everything else looks great, so far. Back soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the work so far. I've removed most mentions of theft-related issues to the signs, but since they are sold to support roadway maintenance, I don't feel it's too promotional to retain that angle, Dank. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I don't have a problem with it at all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through various approvals in 2011, and subsequent changes including a bus rapid transit system with a dedicated Woodward Avenue bus lane.": Not a sentence.
  • "The line was to have 20 different stations serving 12 stops", "The line will have": The line has opened, so "was to have" is wrong, and "will have" should be replaced by how many it has.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

  1. File:Michigan 1 map.png: Use of image is obviously appropriate. Wondering if the file may merit a better name, but not strictly relevant here. What is the provenance and copyright status of the basemap? The file description is a bit unclear.
  2. File:M-1.svg: License and use OK.
  3. File:DetroitWoodwardAvespringsummerday.jpg: License(s) and use seem OK to me. Is that really the starting point of a highway?
  4. File:Wayne State U-Woodward Avenue.jpg: License and use OK.
  5. File:M-1 at I-696.jpg: License and use OK. Looks already more like a highway in that point.
  6. File:M-1 in Bloomfield Hills.png: License and use OK, curiosity wonders about the lack of EXIF.
  7. File:Woodward tribute.jpg: Same issue as below, although it's closer to meeting NFCC#8.
  8. File:Woodwardsign.jpg: Concerned that the non-free image does not meet the f its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding NFCC#8 standard; it certainly does not help me understand anything about this highway.
  9. File:Fox theatre Central United Methodist church.jpg: License and use OK.
  10. File:Woodward Dream Cruise Batmobile.jpg: License and use OK.
  11. File:Old map 1807 plan.jpg: License and use OK, might want to add a commons:Template:PD-scan template to dot the i's.
  12. File:Judge Woodward.jpg: Use OK, but how do we know that the image is free to use?
  13. File:Woodard Avenue & Windsor.png: License and use OK, might want to add a commons:Template:PD-scan template to dot the i's.
  14. File:Woodward Ave Detroit 1942.jpg: Use OK, license in source a bit vague.
  15. File:Woodward Avenue in winter attire, Detroit, Mich.png: Use OK, license in source a bit vague.
  16. File:Test train at Campus Martius station, May 2017.jpg: License and use OK.

There is some incomplete ALT text. I am guessing that it is supposed to be completed by the caption, yeah? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering your points, Jo-Jo Eumerus for specific replies:
1. The naming scheme for the map files is over a decade old, and as time allows, the maps on the Michigan state highways (M-) are being replaced to match the updated style used by other articles with a better naming convention for the new map file. The entire map, save the inset, is from the same dataset, and the result is entirely the creation of the cartographer who made the map, again save the inset.
3. I'm unsure of the meaning behind the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" That is south of the M-1 segment of Woodward Avenue, which doesn't start until the intersection at Adams Avenue on the north side of Grand Circus Park. Not all state highways are rural roadways or freeways, and many follow what otherwise appear to be city streets in whole or in part. The photo is included to illustrate the southern segment of Woodward Avenue, which is discussed in the article in the adjacent paragraph.
6. That photo was taken by me with an old iPhone and then processed in Photoshop CS6 to correct the perspective and color tint from the car windshield. I believe the phone didn't record the same range of EXIF data that the current models do, and what it did record, Photoshop may have discarded in the editing.
7 & 8. These two images are illustrative of the topic (sign, tribute) discussed immediately adjacent to their usage.
11. Added.
13. Already had that template.

As for the alt text (which isn't a FA requirement), yes, it's supposed to be supplemented by the captions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eumerus. Hard to spell name? Anyhow, the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" was more an offtopic curiosity question seeing as as highways are a fairly alien thing for me. The problem with #8 is that it's not at all clear that the article would lose much if at all if it were removed. And non-free images are generally only kept if there is a good "keep" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blame auto correct sneaking back in on that one, Jo-Jo Eumerus. As for the sign, it's illustrative of the National Scenic Byway/All-American Road status of the roadway, which is why it was put in the section discussing it, although it could be argued to be just as identification-based as the main M-1 marker in the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that logo is particularly helpful. The signs, sure, if that highway is well used many people driving on it are bound to see them. But the logo strikes me as useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp: I'm close to supporting. Just a few comments, the first of which is below.

  • Some inconsistency of serial vs. non-serial comma, with a few examples below:
  • (NS) "The street is one of the five principal avenues of Detroit, along with Michigan, Grand River, Gratiot and Jefferson avenues."
  • (NS) "Along the way, it passes several important and historic sites, including notable buildings like One Woodward Avenue, the Guardian Building and The Qube."
  • (NS) "In addition to music clubs, many of Detroit's other major entertainment venues are located on or near Woodward in downtown Detroit, including the Fox Theatre, Majestic Theater and the rest of the theater district,"
  • (S) "ll of M-1 north of I-75 is listed on the National Highway System,[5][6] a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility."
  • (S) "South of I-94, Woodward heads through the Cultural Center Historic District, which includes the campus of Wayne State University, the Detroit Public Library, and the Detroit Institute of Arts;" Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion, entertainment, and cars:

  • "Nightclubs along Woodward hosted a burgeoning music scene in the early days of rock 'n roll,[34] and the area also had plenty of bars and even burlesque shows as late as the 1970s." Is "even" necessary here? It sounds possibly non-neutral. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streetcars and subways:

  • In the end it sounds like no subways were built. Would a better name for this section be "Streetcars and other public transportation"? This would also include the buses that are mentioned in this section and take emphasis off the non-existent subways. Just an idea.

Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • One other thing: there are some places where multiple instances of "also" are clumped together. You could try to use some synonyms such as "similarly", "likewise", "as well", "additionally", "too".
  • (Lead) "It has also been designated a Pure Michigan Byway by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). The roadway was also included in the MotorCities National Heritage Area designated by the US Congress in 1998."
  • (Lead) "The Saginaw Trail also connected to the Mackinaw Trail, which ran north to the Straits of Mackinac at the tip of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. In the age of the auto trails, Woodward Avenue was also part of the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway that connected Portland, Maine, with Portland, Oregon through Ontario in Canada. It was also a part of the Dixie Highway, which connected Michigan with Florida. Woodward Avenue was the location of the first mile (1.6 km) of concrete roadway in the country.
  • (Woodward Dream Cruise) "The numerous drive-ins, each with its dedicated local teenaged clientele, were also popular. Woodward also had numerous car dealerships and automobile accessory shops in the age of the muscle car which completed the formula for young adults to "cruise", race and hang out along the road." Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, Moisejp. I've acted on your suggestions. We should have serial commas throughout now, and some judicious applications of editing or synonyms should help. Imzadi 1979 → 13:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It all looks good now. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Refs 32, 40, 46, 88, 92 and 94 are dead
  • Ref 17: Is Haerty Classic Cars a self-published magazine? I'm not sure if it meets the definition of a high-quality source.
  • Ref 25: Are there other sources that call M-1 the "Father Road"? This book seems to be published by a niche publisher.
  • Refs 35 and 42 are behind paywalls
  • Ref 36 seems like a blog post and could be easily replaced with a better source
  • Ref 41 seems like a low-quality source, as that series of books (Arcadia's Images of America)

Otherwise all good. SounderBruce 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: the first set of refs just needed |dead-url=no removed so that the citations would switch to the archived copies. Hagerty Classic Cars is a magazine produced by Hagerty Insurance and available by subscription to readers who aren't customers of theirs. (The company is a leader in collector car insurance in the US and Canada and works with several national companies like Progressive Insurance and Hemmings Motor News.)

as for the other items, I've commented out the "Father Road" details for now, pending the location of other sources, better sources. I've also tagged the two sources now behind a paywall, and replaced the other two cites. Imzadi 1979 → 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hagerty ref is fine, then. As all other issues have been resolved, I will support based on my source review. SounderBruce 01:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- appear to be quite a few duplinks in the article; I won't hold up promotion over them but pls check and rationalise as appropriate (you can use this script to highlight -- note that it boxes the initial instances in green and the subsequent/duplicate instances in red). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and pulled three, however the rest are duplicates between the three major prose sections and the lead and not within said sections, allowable per the guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 [50].

Metallurgical Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, one of the key sites of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have one query. In British and Australian English, "down tools" means stop work as a form of industrial action. I take it from your edit that this may not be understood by American readers? So I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In American English, your edit "taking action" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A year later the opening paragraph, much less the opening sentence, still doesn't say what the Metallurgical Project is. What is it, by the way? I think if no one is willing to do the most basic work on an article to address issues already raised, it's premature to nominate it for FA status. See old ignored post on article talk page. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BA (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the article. Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One word? Is it a building? A project (if so to do what)? A group of scientists? A mission? Wasn't the Met Lab the group that was supposed to design the first production pile? The first sentence is more about the Manhattan Project, the second about the Metallurigcal Project, then we move confusedly onto when it was established, whatever it is, some Nobel laureate, a university. The Metallurgical Lab is a cat. What is it? If it can't be said outright without all these asides that seem to be obscuring a lack of insight, I'm not sure there's enough information to write a FA. I disagree with it being a good article with this lead. I'm pretty sure it's the mission for creating the production pile, but not positive. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:87 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It already says it all. If you cannot comprehend something so simple, you cannot review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The lead is obscured by asides everywhere. It talks about everything the Met Lab is part of, people who had Nobel prizes and led universities. Maybe you know what the Met Lab is. So, why not say it? "A rocket is a ...." "An electron is a ...." "The Metallurgical Laboratory is a ...." Not what it's part of. What it is. Not where it was. What is the Metallurgical Laboratory? What is it?
Even here, you want to bring it to FA, but you discuss me rather than say what the Met Lab is. --2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some examples from other parts of the Manhattan Project: "The Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (ALAAP), was a United States munitions plant ...." "The Alsos Mission was an organized effort by a team of United States military, scientific, and intelligence personnel ...." "The Ames process is a process by which pure uranium metal is obtained." "The Ames Project was a research and development project." Then after saying what it is the articles go on to say where and the topic's role in the Manhattan Project. --2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-organised the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My only opposition was the lead, but I don't know how to do a strike through, maybe someone could take care of that?. I think the lead is not only better but quite good. Thank you. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:54 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Be consistent on using states with publication locations, you sometimes give them and sometimes don't (i.e. Berkeley ...I understand not doing New York, but Berkeley is not a well known world city nor is Urbana (trust me, I live near Urbana!)
    I imagine that it is a university town. I have added states to the locations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

  • the term "bone seeker" in the lead should be explained in layman's terms, also in the body, and linked
    Astonishingly, bone seeker has an article, so linked to that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest μg is not commonly recognised, and microgram be used and linked, with the abbrev after in parentheses
    I would have thought it was pretty common; it's been on the Year 2 syllabus since 1972. There is an article though, so linked to that.
  • link Zinn at first mention (instead of second), and then use just Zinn per WP:SURNAME
    done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Anderson
    done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the license of File:Argonne history Chicago Pile-3.jpg needs work, I think the DoE license would be the right one to use here
    done. I vaguely recall that Flickr does not allow you to upload with PD, so many agencies up;load PD images as CC-BY-SA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, great work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I made a couple of minor copyedits; please revert if necessary. The article looks in very good shape, and I was unable to find much to complain about. I just have one query: "The discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick in 1932, followed by that of nuclear fission by German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938, and its theoretical explanation (and naming) by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch soon after, opened up the possibility of a controlled nuclear chain reaction with uranium." Does "its theoretical explanation" refer to the neutron, or to fission? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedits are fine. I have removed the first clause about the discovery of the neutron, as it not only introduced the ambiguity you pointed out, but made the sentence a bit too long. Meitner and Frisch theorised fission; Chadwick and Rutherford theorised the neutron. I find it fascinating that neutrons, objects that you can't see and whose existence is a scientific theory, are the basis of such a wealth of practical applications. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good; Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2017 [51].

Northern England[edit]

Nominator(s): Smurrayinchester 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England is, well, the northern part of England. But it's also an increasingly distinctive cultural area, shaped by centuries of Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norman and Scottish invasion and more recently by the rise and fall of heavy industry. In this article I've tried to summarise the region's history, its economy, and its culture to explain why there is such a North–South divide in England. Unfortunately it didn't get any feedback at peer review, but it has had some useful edits from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom. Thanks in advance for any reviews, comments or suggestions. (Still needs a source review) Smurrayinchester 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • (To reviewers - the Politics section may be out of date after tonight's election (eg. if Conservatives become more popular in the North or UKIP utterly collapse). I'll update it once the results are all in and analysis of the results in the North are available from RS.) Smurrayinchester 15:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated! Smurrayinchester 18:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • Generally speaking maps and diagrams should be scaled up, and as much as is possible the captions should help the reader understand what the colours and symbols used represent when no legend is present.
    • Scaled up where possible (although I haven't been able to check that the page layout still looks OK one the largest screens checked). All images now have legends (except EWHealthMap, which uses a continuous scale (which should be readable at standard resolutions) and instead has a note that "Lighter colours indicate longer life expectancy").
  • File:British_Isles_at_night_by_VIIRS_(cropped).jpg: source image includes a NASA tag, suggest this one should as well
    • Thanks - bug in the Crop Tool meant it wasn't carried across.
  • File:012298-Baltic_Flour_Mill_Gateshead_unknown_1950_(4075866463).jpg: the statement from Newcastle Libraries is not consistent with the licensing tag given - they do not appear to have been the copyright holder
    • Have rewritten the source info, but given that the library seem to be being slightly slack here, I've taken the image out (since can't be 100% sure it is public domain).
  • File:NorthernEnglandPopulationPie.svg: what was the source of the data used to create this diagram? Same with File:EWHealthMap.svg.
    • Sources added.
  • Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Impressive article, done through the bit on agriculture and only a few comments:

  • " The deindustrialisation that followed in the second half of the 20th century hit Northern England hard, and many Northern towns remain deprived compared to Southern England." I would cut the second use of Northern.
Done. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles had to call the Long Parliament," it wasn't Long when he called it. Suggest "what became the Long Parliament" or similar.
Done. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially Pakistan and Bangladesh, in the 1950s and 60s " Bangladesh became referred to as such in 1971.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed to say "starting in the 1950s" (the source also discusses Bangladeshi immigration in the 1970s and onwards, so that's fine). Before 1971 Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, so the sentence should still be correct without bogging the reader down in the details of the history of East Pakistan.
Thanks! Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over the previous two decades" I might specify years, since you are saying previous to a two-year range, making exactly what you mean uncertain.
Done. This one was a bit tricky, because life expectancy stats are averaged over several year ranges. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even before the Second World War, the Belgian coast at Ostend had become popular with Northern working-class tourists," There is a slight hint that the war caused the coast to become more popular with British tourists, which may or may not be true, but I'm not sure it's what you're driving for.
Clarified. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of 24 national museums and galleries in England outside London, 14 are located in the North." I might put a "the" before "24" to make it clear these are the only such museums etc.
Done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since The Guardian moved to London in 1964" This is the first time you mention it so a link would be appropriate, as might be a way of signaling to the reader that it used to be the Manchester Guardian.
Done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On media, can anything be said about electronic media? More generally, there doesn't seem a lot said about the internet throughout the article. Likely towns are installing wifi through the town centre, or otherwise encouraging technology.
Done. See Northern England#Communications and the internet. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the disbanding of the Cheshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire military bands" possibly a synonym for "disbanding", considering ...
Ha ha, good point! Went for "dismissal" Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some unsourced matter under "rugby". Also under "Rail"
Assuming you're referring to the lists of rugby teams and list of light rail systems, done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jews were forcefully expelled from England by the 1290 Edict of Expulsion" This may be an ENGVAR thing, but "forcefully" comes across more as "energetically" in American English. Also, "expelled ... Expulsion". consider "forcibly banished" or some such.
Done - your wording sounds better. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Links between Northern cities remain poor," It's unclear to me if this sentence is a follow-on from the previous, about freight transport, or is a commentary on transport in general, which is the subject of the previous sentence, the topic sentence of the paragraph.
Have clarified. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice article on a large and somewhat indefinite subject. I certainly learned a few things from it!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Edwininlondon[edit]

I enjoyed reading this well-researched, well-structured, well-written article. A few comments so far:

  • This has left the North a region of contrasts -> not quite sure what This refers to
Removed the sentence. It doesn't add anything, and it reminds me of Bart Simpson's awful "Libya is a land of contrasts" essay filler. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roman place name are in italics, but I don't think that's what [BADITALICS] tells us to do
Yeah, this is unclear to me. Foreign names should be in italics, but proper names generally not. Going to follow the FA Greater Manchester and unitalicise them. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Britain in 878 caption -> it may be my monitor but the darkest brown on map does not look much like the darkest legend
I also thought that when I created the legend, but I just double checked and they are identical colours (#dfc779). I guess it's an optical illusion caused by the contrast with the grey box around it. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • many place names and surnames -> an example of each would be good
Have added some examples of place names (for the most part, Northern surnames are taken from place names - Scargill is Norse name for instance, but it's derived from the village of Scargill. The sentence is already a bit bloated, so I've just taken out the mention of surnames) Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Norman subjugation, monasteries returned to the North seeking to -> sounds a bit odd to me, monasteries as actors
Added a mention of missionaries. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pilgrimage of Grace -> delink second link
Done Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the United States or to other colonies -> US no longer a colony at that time
Yeah, that's a slightly confusing sentence. Changed. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • chiefly to the US -> inconsistent with United States just mentioned
I think this is OK - United States at the first instance, US afterwards. I do the same thing with European Union/EU. (MOS says that US and EU are both widely understood enough that they don't need explanation.) I just don't like having two uses of "United States" right next to each other. Maybe it's just inelegant variation. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yorkshire and Humber and the North West both -> Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West both
Oops! Thanks. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, here's more:

  • 55.85% --> 2 decimals feels a bit over the top accurate, and inconsistent with other stats
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • register of places of worship registered --> 2 x register
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the entire north is covered by -> capital N perhaps? Without entire, you would have written "the North is covered by", right?
Yep, fixed. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • United Kingdom or UK? I think it's ok to have United Kingdom once and then do UK, but not "United Kingdom outside London" and "The first mosque in the UK " so far down in the article
Changed. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in same era caused bus use -> in the same era caused bus use
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • public tram system in UK -> public tram system in the UK
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnotes: all of them need references
All the footnotes are referenced.* I've changed a couple to nested footnotes where the footnote needs a separate citation, but in cases where the footnote is simply a parenthetical remark (i.e. explaining the non-standard definition of "English-speaking", or enumerating the 10 most deprived boroughs) to a sentence that is cited, I've not added a reference, per WP:CITEDENSE ("Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements."). *(With the exception of footnote 2, which explains terminology used in the article rather than an external fact) Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general the formatting of the references needs quite a bit of work still:

I'm going to try running a pywikibot task to convert all these - there are 87 ISBNs in this article. Run! (The only books I can see now that lack ISBNs are those are older than the ISBN system; The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth for instance doesn't have an ISBN in any catalogue I checked, because it was published in 1920. There are also some university theses and white papers, which don't have ISBNs either) Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • books need a location of the publisher too, I believe
Per MOS:REF, it's optional, and I don't include it because a) it's not always available and b) it clutters the reference without adding any useful information. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • quite a few books don't seem to have a publisher listed at all (just as an example, but there are more: Upton & Widdowson)
Thanks. I think I've caught all these now. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't work out what rules determine whether something is listed in Bibliography or not. Take Highways England (2016). Northern Trans-Pennine Routes Strategic Study (PDF). Department for Transport. pp. 8–9. Why is that the only one with page numbers in Bibliography? Should it even be here?
Page number was a copying error. Any book where more than one page/page range is cited appears in the bibliography, so Harvard referencing works. Books that are only referenced once are simply footnoted - I don't think it helps to clutter the bibliography with books that are only mentioned to cite a single fact. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography items at the end don't seem to be in alphabetical order anymore.
They should be, although I listed the books without named authors (i.e. the IPPR North and Highways England whitepapers) after the ones with authors. I could mix them in if that makes more sense. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I can get pywikibot working, I should be able to iron out the last point later today. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have managed to convert the page to ISBN-13. (pywikibot doesn't make it easy!) Smurrayinchester 19:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Many of the comments by Edwininlondon have resulted in the sources being cleaned up a bit, so that's already good.
  • Everything in the article that needs a citation appears to have one. No deadlinks.
  • Sources are of encyclopedic quality.
  • Spotchecks: I looked at the sources for footnotes 29, 92, 122, and 241. All are represented correctly in the text.
  • To conclude: everything looks good as far as sources go. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Smurrayinchester 18:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert at will. Overall this is in outstanding shape and the prose is excellent. I have a few nitpicks.

  • The paragraph on the Anglo-Saxons could be a little clearer, I think. In particular:
    • It was only the Angles who settled in the north.
      I don't understand this comment. The only mention of Angles is in the sentence "After the end of Roman rule in Britain and the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes..." which makes clear that there were several different Germanic settlers. Could you explain a bit more? Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I've struck this -- the point I was making was just that the Saxons and Jutes did not settle in the north, and I thought it might be worth reconstructing the sentence so it was apparent that Bernicia and Deira were kingdoms of the Angles. However, there's no room in an long article like this for much nuance about subtopics, and it's not wrong as it stands, so I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that was my misreading (I thought you said "not only"). OK, changed and all clear. Smurrayinchester 11:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bernicia and Deira did not stretch west of the Pennines until well after unification as Northumbria; this is implied by the later sentence about Rheged and Elmet but not clear when they are first mentioned.
      Thanks, have rearranged that bit. Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "Celtic" isn't used in the article till after the mention of Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, which seems odd.
      Done (have clarified that the Brigantes were Celts) Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which the latest is the Northern Powerhouse": perhaps an "as of 2017" would be appropriate here?
    Done. Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest glossing "devo-max" inline; outside the UK I can't imagine many readers will have ever heard of it.
    Done (actually, I removed the term and just explained what the proposal is). Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The unusual situation of having two archbishops at the top of Church hierarchy suggests that Northern England has been seen as a sui generis cultural region for centuries": I may be missing it, but I don't see support for this in the cited source (Dobson, p. 3). It seems odd to say "centuries", since the archbishopric goes back to 735.
    It's there, the sentence that ends "at least this inertia implied an assumption, as it still does, that northern England is at least in one important way absolutely sui generis." I've reworded the sentence a little. Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, missed that. I think it was a good idea to remove "for centuries". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. A very impressive article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments! Could you explain the first one a little more? Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Appear to be quite a few duplinks in the article; I won't hold up promotion over them but pls check and rationalise as appropriate (you can use this script to highlight -- note that it boxes the initial instances in green and the subsequent/duplicate instances in red). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like quite a few crept in during editing. All resolved (except for links that duplicate those in the lede). Smurrayinchester 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Gill, Thomas; Libraries Board of South Australia (1974). The history and topography of Glen Osmond, with map and illustrations. Libraries Board of South Australia. p. 69.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2017&oldid=793308649"